Motives, goals, and adaptive patterns of performance in Asian American and Anglo American students

Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141 – 158 www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Motives, goals, and adaptive patterns of performance in Asian American and Anglo American students Akane Zusho*, Paul R. Pintrich, Kai S. Cortina Combined Program in Education and Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States Received 15 October 2004; received in revised form 10 November 2004; accepted 10 November 2004

Abstract The relations between achievement motives, achievement goals, and motivational outcomes on a math task were explored in this correlational study of Asian American (n=105) and Anglo American (n=98) college students. Students completed pretest questionnaires about their two motives (motive to approach success and fear of failure) and three achievement goals (mastery, performance-approach, performance-avoidance) prior to working on a mathematics task, which was then followed by a post-test questionnaire that assessed students’ competence perceptions, interest, and anxiety for the task. Asian American students were found to display on average higher levels of fear of failure, performance-avoidance goals, anxiety, and math performance than Anglo American students. More importantly, however, structural equation modeling indicated that the relations among motives, goals, and outcomes were similar for the two ethnic groups. These results also revealed that the two achievement motives were differentially linked to mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals. In addition, the three achievement goals were found to mediate the relations between motives and the outcomes. The achievement goals also were linked differentially to the outcomes. The results are discussed in terms of the generalizability of a hierarchical model of motivation to both Asian American and Anglo American students. D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Goals; Motives; Ethnicity

* Corresponding author. Fordham University, Graduate School of Education, 113 West 60th Street, New York, NY 100237484, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Zusho). 1041-6080/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2004.11.003

142

A. Zusho et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141–158

1. Introduction The role of cultural differences in motivation, cognition, learning, and achievement is one of the important issues in educational psychology today (Pintrich, 2003). As our field makes progress and develops reasonable generalizations about students’ learning and performance, we must nevertheless consider the extent to which these generalizations truly capture the experience of all students within American society as well as the experiences of students from different cultures, especially East Asian cultures. The relevance of non-Western cultures for understanding general psychological processes stems partially from the now well-documented differences in general cognitive processing and thinking between Western and East Asian groups (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). Within educational psychology, the interest also emanates from a quest to understand the processes that lead to such high levels of academic performance and achievement in Asian cultures, both crossculturally and within our own country. This study continues in this tradition as we examine the motivational processes that are linked to adaptive performance in Asian American and Anglo American students. In examining the etiology of Asian American students’ academic success, past research has focused mainly on cultural variation in academic-related values and beliefs as generated and supported by differences in family and school contexts. In particular, it has been suggested that Asian American parents and families place greater emphasis on the value of education and academic excellence and generally hold higher academic standards for their children (Chao, 1996; Chen & Stevenson, 1995; Hao & BonsteadBruns, 1998; Mau, 1997; Schnieder & Lee, 1990; Sue & Okazaki, 1990). One of the assumptions guiding this line of research is that these practices facilitate Asian American students’ motivation to learn and achieve. Yet, the number of focused studies addressing Asian American students’ motivational processes has been less than forthcoming. Thus, the primary purpose of this study is to address this gap in the literature. We conceptualize motivation in this paper according to achievement goal theory, arguably one of the dominant theories of motivation in the field today (Elliot, 1999). Achievement goal theory was developed within a social-cognitive framework and focuses on explaining how students’ goal orientations influence how they approach, engage, and respond to achievement situations (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Two particular goals are often emphasized in this literature; namely mastery goals (i.e., goals focused on learning and understanding) and performance goals (i.e., goals focused on the demonstration of competence). Of late, a number of theoretical and methodological inroads have been made in our understanding of how these goals relate to key motivational and achievement-related constructs. These developments, we believe, have implications for our understanding of Asian American students’ motivation. We briefly discuss these developments and its relation to Asian American students’ motivational processes in the following two sections. 1.1. Refining achievement goal theory Within the last decade, two developments have led to a reconsideration of achievement goal theory. First, there has been a resurgence of interest in the distinction between appetitive (i.e., bapproachQ) and aversive (i.e., bavoidanceQ) forms of motivation (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Covington, 2001; Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002). Indeed, this distinction lies at the heart of a number of classical motivational theories, such as those of Atkinson, McClelland, and Weiner (Elliot, 1999). However, it was not really addressed, at least empirically, by achievement goal theorists until rather recently when researchers began to examine the differential effects of two types of performance goals, namely

A. Zusho et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141–158

143

performance-approach goals where students are focused on outperforming others, and performanceavoidance goals, where students are focused on the avoidance of looking inferior or incompetent in relation to others (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998; Harackiewicz et al., 2002; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997). Counter to earlier work that largely documented the detrimental effects of performance goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988), these latter studies suggested that maladaptive patterns of cognition, motivation and affect are observed only when students are focused on performance-avoidance goals. Eventually, this line of research led to the multiple goals perspective, which assumes that the pursuit of a performance-approach goal under certain circumstances can lead to gains in achievement (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Harackiewicz et al., 2002). In addition to the increased emphasis on the approach-avoidance distinction within the achievement goal framework, a second, albeit related, development concerns an investigation into the antecedents of these three achievement goals (i.e., mastery, performance-approach, performance-avoidance goals). This work has been conducted mainly by Elliot and his colleagues (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Thrash, 1998), who forward what they call a hierarchical model of motivation. In this model, the three achievement goals are proposed to mediate the relation between achievement motives, in particular the motive to approach success (nAch) and the motive to avoid failure (fear of failure), and select achievement and motivational outcomes. Specifically, Elliot and Church found that nAch was associated with the adoption of both mastery goals and performance-approach goals, while fear of failure was linked to both performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals. Finally, these goals were differentially related to outcomes with mastery goals predicting interest, and performance-approach goals relating to actual performance (Elliot & Church, 1997). 1.2. Asian American motivation How might these two recent developments help to explain Asian American students’ motivational processes? First, there is some evidence to suggest that in comparison to Westerners, Asians may be more inclined to regulate toward goals in an avoidant manner (Elliot, Chirkov, Kim, & Sheldon, 2001; Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000). For example, Lee et al. (2000) demonstrated in a series of studies that individuals who endorse by and large an independent view of self (e.g., Americans) respond better to information that is approach-oriented in nature. In contrast, individuals who espouse an interdependent view of self (e.g., Asians) were found to respond to information that is avoidance-oriented, or focused on the prevention of losses or the fulfillment of social obligations. In short, there is reason to believe that individualistic and collectivistic cultures may differentially support appetitive and aversive motivational processes respectively. Following this line of logic, then, it would be reasonable to assume that Asians, including Asian Americans, might be more or less inclined to adopt avoidance goals. There is some empirical evidence to support such a claim. Elliot et al. (2001), for example, found interdependent self-construals to be related more to the adoption of avoidance goals. They also found Asian American students to adopt more avoidance strivings that non-Asian Americans, and finally South Koreans were found to adopt avoidance goals in greater frequency than individuals from the United States. It should be noted, however, that Elliot et al. measure of goals were not the achievement goals we have discussed so far in this paper, but rather broader personal strivings. To this end, there is still a need to determine whether or not this

144

A. Zusho et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141–158

tendency toward avoidance goals translates to the achievement domain, and furthermore to investigate how these goals, in turn, relate to specific achievement and motivational outcomes. A second way these recent developments in achievement goal theory might serve to clarify Asian American students’ motivational processes concerns the role of fear of failure. Several studies have indicated that Asians may display higher levels of fear of failure, perhaps as a response to high parental expectations and pressures (Eaton & Dembo, 1997; Mau, 1997). This idea was supported by the empirical findings of Steinberg, Dornbusch, and Brown (1992), who examined the relation of parental practices and academic achievement among various ethnic groups. Steinberg et al. reported that in comparison to other ethnic groups, Asian American students displayed a greater fear of academic failure, as evidenced by their strong belief that doing poorly in school will have negative repercussions on their future. Moreover, they found that this relation was strongest for those students with the highest levels of achievement. These findings are also in line with the recent work of Heine and his colleagues who have suggested that Asians, or more specifically the Japanese, might be more motivated by failure than success (Heine, Kitayama, & Lehman, 2001; Heine, Kitayama, Lehman, Takat et al., 2001; Heine & Lehman, 1997; Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999; Heine, Takata, & Lehman, 2000; Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997). In summary, the cross-cultural research on avoidance regulation, as well as the aforementioned work on fear of failure, suggests that a closer examination of these constructs may help to shed light on the processes underlying Asian American students’ achievement motivation. To this end, we focus specifically on the hierarchical model of motivation as it allows the investigator to not only examine the role of avoidance goals as advanced by the multiple goals perspective, but also fear of failure as well. In addition, the model accounts for how the motive to avoid failure might be, in certain cases, adaptive; it suggests that in line with the multiple goals perspective, displaying higher levels of fear of failure might not be entirely detrimental, if one channels that fear into a performance-approach goal orientation. 1.3. Study overview In applying the hierarchical model of motivation to Asian American students, we considered two important questions in this study. First, are there mean level differences in the motives, goals, or outcomes between Asian American and Anglo American students? Given previous research (Eaton & Dembo, 1997; Mau, 1997), we predicted that Asian Americans would be higher in fear of failure, but not in nAch in comparison to Anglo Americans. Following the positive links between fear of failure and performance goals (Elliot & Church, 1997), it was predicted that Asian Americans would be higher in both performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals. However, since nAch is more closely tied to mastery goals (Elliot & Church, 1997), and we did not predict group differences in nAch, we also did not expect to find group differences in mastery goals. Finally, given the links between performance goals and outcomes (Elliot & Church, 1997; Harackiewicz et al., 1998, 2002; Pintrich, 2000), it was expected that Asian Americans would be higher in anxiety and actual performance, but not differ in terms of interest and competence perceptions. The second and probably more important question in terms of theory is the nature of the relations between motives, goals, and adaptive performance. If we are developing models of motivation that are generalizable, then it would be expected that the relations between motives, goals, and outcomes should be similar for Asian and Anglo American students. We predicted that the relations would be similar in both groups, even though there may be mean level differences between the two groups in terms of their motives,

A. Zusho et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141–158

145

goals, and performance. We expected that the two achievement motives would be linked to the three goals with nAch positively linked to mastery and performance-approach goals, while fear of failure would be positively related to both performance goals (Elliot & Church, 1997). We also expected that mastery goals would be related positively to interest and competence perceptions, negatively to anxiety, but unrelated to performance (Elliot & Church, 1997; Harackiewicz et al., 1998, 2002). In contrast, we predicted that performance-approach goals would be positively related to performance, competence perceptions, and anxiety, but unrelated to interest. Performance-avoidance goals were predicted to have negative relations with the outcomes, with the exception of anxiety, which we expected would be positively related to performance-avoidance goals (Elliot & Church, 1997; Harackiewicz et al., 1998, 2002; Pintrich, 2000). 2. Method 2.1. Participants Participants were 105 Asian American (59 females, 46 males) and 98 Anglo American (57 females, 41 males) introductory psychology students at a large Midwestern university. Most of these students were freshmen or sophomores. Participants were selected based upon their responses to a large prescreening questionnaire completed by most of the students enrolled in the course. All of the Asian American participants identified themselves as bAsian/Asian AmericanQ while all of the Anglo American students identified themselves as bCaucasianQ on this initial survey. Additionally, we selected the Anglo American students based on reports of their scores on the mathematics portion of the SAT (SAT-M), such that the Anglo American students’ mean score was comparable to that of the Asian American participants. The average SAT-M score for the Anglo American participants was 681 points (S.D.=53.86) while the average SAT-M score for the Asian American participants was 691 (S.D.=70.44) points. The difference in SAT-M scores between these two groups of students was not statistically significant, t (178)= 1.03, pN.05. In response to demographic related questions, all of the Asian American students reported being of East Asian descent. These students were predominantly of Chinese origin (58%), although some indicated Korean (36%) and Japanese (5%) heritage. Over 70% of the Asian participants indicated that they have lived in the United States their entire life or more than 10 years and over 60% of the Asian participants reported being a citizen of the United States.1 In response to a close-ended question about 1

Additional analyses investigating generational differences within the Asian American sample were conducted prior to collapsing all Asian participants into one group. To do this, we first classified the Asian students into one of two categories: (1) those who had lived in the U.S. their entire life or more than 10 years and (2) those who had lived in the U.S. for less than 10 years. These analyses revealed no statistically significant differences between these two groups for interest [t (99)=1.00, pN.05], and anxiety [t (99)=.46, pN.05]. There was, however, a significant difference in the mathematics achievement scores between these two groups of Asian students, with those Asian students who reported having lived in the U.S for less than 10 years (M=23.43) achieving on average higher mathematics scores than those Asian students who had lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years (M=21.53)[t (102)=2.08, p=.04]. There was also a significant difference for perceptions of competence, with Asian students who indicated having lived in the U.S. reporting considerably lower competence scores (M=2.92) than their newly immigrated counterparts (M=3.63)[t (99)=3.03, pb.01]. We also examined differences within the Asian sample based on citizenship. These analyses revealed no significant differences for mathematics achievement [t (102)=1.36, pN.05], interest [t (99)=.84, pN.05], as well as anxiety [t (99)=1.02, pN.05]. There was a significant difference between U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens on their mean ratings of their competence, again with U.S. citizens reporting lower competence scores (M=2.96) than non-U.S. citizens (M=3.41) [t (99)=1.99, p=.04]. While the results of these analyses indicate that there are some slight generational differences, we felt that the differences were not substantial enough to warrant investigating systematic differences within the Asian sample. Moreover, since the focus of the current study was to examine differences in the motivational processes of Asian and Anglo American students, we felt justified in collapsing the Asian sample into one group. Nevertheless, these analyses do suggest the importance of exploring further intra-group differences in addition to inter-group differences.

146

A. Zusho et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141–158

their ethnicity, all of the Anglo American students in this sample identified themselves as bCaucasianQ. In addition, all of the Anglo American participants indicated that they have spent their entire life in the United States. 2.2. Procedure All participants completed a survey and answered a timed 30-item mathematics achievement test over the course of an hour. In the first 10 min, participants provided background information (e.g., year in school, major, high school GPA, SAT/ACT score) and answered questions related to their ethnic identity and achievement motives. Participants were then provided with a brief description of the upcoming math activity; they were told that they were going to be working on some math problems similar to those found on the mathematics portion of the SAT for 30 min. Following this brief explanation, participants were asked about their goal orientations for this math task. Following the mathematics test, students were asked several questions about their competence perceptions, level of anxiety, and overall interest in the task. The entire survey was administered in groups of roughly 10 participants. 2.3. Measures With the exception of the mathematics achievement test, all items were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale where (1) indicated strongly disagree and (5) indicated strongly agree. Scales were created by taking the mean of students’ responses to the individual items in each scale. Participants’ scores on the mathematics achievement test were calculated by summing all correct responses (each correct response was given 1 point). 2.3.1. Need for achievement (nAch) The six-item need for achievement measure was adapted from a number of established scales including the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) (Megargee, 1972), Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) (Edwards, 1954), and Jackson’s Personality Research Form (JPRF) (Elliot & Church, 1997). Sample items include, bWhen I want something, I usually go all-out to get itQ, and bIf I see a chance to get something I want, I move on it right awayQ. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the Anglo sample was .74 and .76 for the Asian sample. 2.3.2. Fear of failure Items for the fear of failure measure were taken from several sources, including Herman’s fear of failure measure (see Elliot & Church, 1997), Eaton and Dembo’s (1997) conceptualization of fear of failure, and Carver and White’s (1994) Behavioral Inhibition Scale (BIS). The entire scale consists of five items including, bCriticism or scolding hurts me quite a bitQ and bI worry more about doing poorly than I think about doing wellQ. Alphas for this scale were also acceptable with an alpha for the Anglo sample of .78 and an alpha for the Asian sample of .83. 2.3.3. Goal orientations Students’ achievement goal orientations were assessed through three scales: mastery goal orientation scale, performance-approach orientation scale, and performance-avoidance orientation

A. Zusho et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141–158

147

scales. These measures were adapted from the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (Midgley et al., 1997). The mastery goal orientation scale included five items and was conceptualized as a student’s focus on learning and understanding [alphas: .74 (Anglo), .85 (Asian)]. Sample mastery goals included, bI enjoy working on tasks that make me thinkQ, and bLearning about new things is important to meQ. The performance-approach scale contained nine items and was defined as the tendency to focus on outperforming other students [alphas: .94 (Anglo), .95 (Asian)]. Sample performanceapproach items include, bIt is important for me to do better than any other students on this testQ, and bI am motivated by the thought of outperforming the other participants in this studyQ. Finally, performance-avoidance goal orientation was characterized in terms of the student’s focus on not looking dumb or stupid, relative to the other students in the experiment [alphas: .86 (Anglo), .85(Asian)]. Sample items include, bThe reason why I do this math task is so others won’t think I’m dumbQ, and bAn important reason why I do this task is so that I don’t embarrass myself in front of othersQ. 2.3.4. Mathematics achievement Participants’ mathematics knowledge and ability were assessed through a mathematics achievement test. This test was devised based on actual problems from the quantitative portion of past Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s and assessed students’ understanding of basic arithmetic, algebra, and geometry functions (ETS, 1996). The test included 30 items divided into three sections. Each question in the first section contained two quantities. Participants were asked to compare the two quantities and determine whether one quantity was greater, smaller, or equal to the other quantity, or could not be determined from the provided information. The second section contained 10 multiple choice questions and the final section contained 10 open-ended questions (see Appendix A for examples of these questions). The total number correct out of 30 comprised the achievement measure. 2.3.5. Perceptions of competence Competence perception was defined in terms of students’ assessment of their performance on the mathematics task after they completed the task. The two competence perceptions items were bI think I did very well on the testQ and bI think I got a very good grade on this examQ [alphas: .98 (Anglo), .98 (Asian)] (Elliot & Church, 1997). 2.3.6. Interest Interest was defined in terms of personal interest in as well as enjoyment of the task. Students’ interest in the achievement task was assessed using Elliot and Church’s (1997) four-item intrinsic motivation scale. Sample items included, bI found the math task interestingQ and bI enjoyed the math task very muchQ [alphas: .72 (Anglo), .76 (Asian)]. 2.3.7. Anxiety Anxiety included feelings of nervousness and tenseness before, during, and after the mathematics task. Students’ level of anxiety was assessed using items from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993). The scale consists of five items including, bMy heart was racing while I was working on the math taskQ, and bI felt tense and nervous before I started the testQ [alphas: .76 (Anglo), .80 (Asian)].

148

A. Zusho et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141–158

3. Results 3.1. Descriptive analyses and zero-order correlations Table 1 displays the means and standard deviations of the two achievement motives, goals, and the outcome variables for the two samples. Simple t-tests between the two ethnic groups revealed no statistically significant differences for nAch, mastery goals, interest, and competence perceptions as hypothesized. Contrary to our predictions, no significant ethnic differences were detected for students’ endorsement of performance-approach goals. However, in line with our predictions, Asian Americans students reported on average higher levels of fear of failure and performance-avoidance goals than Anglo American students, although it should be noted that with mean scores below 2.0 both groups could be considered to be low in performance-avoidance goals. Similarly, but again in line with our predictions, Asian American students were found to display higher levels of anxiety in comparison to their Anglo American counterparts, although again both groups on average reported fairly low levels of anxiety. In addition, Asian students on average outscored the Anglo American students on the mathematics achievement test. In summary, for all nine measures except performance-approach goals, the hypothesized group differences (or similarities) emerged. Table 2 shows the zero-order correlations between the achievement motives, goal orientations, and outcome measures for the two samples. In general, the patterns in the relation between the various constructs were quite similar across the two ethnic groups, although in most cases the magnitude of the relation tends to be greater in the Asian American sample than the Anglo American sample. Nevertheless, the relations between goals and motives and the relations between

Table 1 Means and standard deviations for ethnic identity, achievement motives, motivation, and outcome measures Anglo Americans (n=98)

Asian Americans (n=105)

M

M

S.D.

t (df)

S.D.

Achievement motives nAch Fear of failure

3.62 3.12

.59 .78

3.59 3.52

.68 .81

.39 (199) 3.25 (200)***

Goal orientations Mastery Performance-approach Performance-avoidance

3.89 2.91 1.66

.60 .96 .73

3.87 2.83 1.97

.71 1.11 .92

.17 (199) .54 (201) 2.66 (201)**

20.97 3.24 3.16 1.88

3.93 .83 1.06 .68

22.11 3.39 3.14 2.13

4.30 .87 1.20 .83

1.98 1.24 .15 2.28

Outcomes Math achievement Interest Competence Anxiety * pb.05. ** pb.01. *** pb.001.

(201)* (197) (197) (197)*

A. Zusho et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141–158

149

Table 2 Zero order correlations between outcome measures, motives, and goal orientations for Asian Americans and Anglo Americans 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Fear of failure nAch Mastery Performance-approach Performance-avoidance Interest Competence perceptions Math performance Anxiety

2 .257*

.470*** .112 .615*** .542*** .169 .123 .006 .490***

.360*** .525*** .453*** .273** .243* .080 .281**

3

4

.141 .377*** .266** .381*** .096 .187 .084 .709*** .250* .155 .375*** .347*** .115 .112 .055 .447***

5 .449*** .265** .046 .385*** .008 .043 .172 .547***

6 .026 .045 .151 .120 .253* .352*** .250* .049

7 .053 .084 .177 .372*** .137 .503*** .598*** .047

8 .009 .009 .182 .207* .067 .536*** .570***

9 .307** .230* .001 .183 .578*** .161 .281** .105

.049

Intercorrelations for Anglo American participants (n=96) are presented above the diagonal, and intercorrelations for Asian American participants (n=101) are presented below the diagonal. * pb.05. ** pb.01. *** pb.001.

goals and the outcome measures were generally in the same anticipated direction for the two groups. 3.2. Testing the hierarchical model Structural equation modeling with structured means (So¨rbom, 1981) was applied to assess the fit of the proposed model suggesting that the relations of the motives to outcomes are mediated entirely by the three goal orientations for the two samples.2 This approach allows for hypothesis testing concerning mean differences and mediational processes simultaneously. The program LISREL was used to estimate model parameters, standard errors and overall fit indices (Jo¨resko¨g & So¨rbom, 1992, 1993). Three types of fit indices were used to assess the overall fit of the model: the chi-square statistic, the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The chi-square statistic provides an asymptotically valid significance test of model fit. The CFI estimates the relative fit of the target model in comparison to a baseline model where all of the variables in the model are uncorrelated (Bentler, 1990; Hu & Bentler, 1995). The values of the CFI range from 0 to 1, with values greater than .95 indicating an acceptable model fit. Finally, the RMSEA is an index that takes the model complexity into account. An RMSEA of .05 or less is considered to be a reasonable fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).

2

We originally included in our model, a variation of Phinney’s (1992) multi-group ethnic identity measure (eight items, alpha for Asian sample=.85), primarily to address whether level of acculturation into American society had any moderating effects on Asian American students’ motivational patterns. The scale included items related to affirmation and belonging (e.g., bI have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic groupQ), and ethnic identity achievement (e.g., bI have spent time trying to find out more about my own ethnic group, such as its history, traditions, and customsQ). While we did detect differences between the Asian (M=3.57) and Anglo samples (M=3.00) in their average level of ethnic identity, [t (199)= 5.42, pb.001], we did not uncover any motive by identity interactions for the Asian sample. Consequently, we removed ethnic identity from all subsequent analyses. We suspect that this may be due to the lack of variance within our Asian American sample, given that the majority of the students were either first or second generation Asian Americans.

150

A. Zusho et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141–158

Given our primary research question regarding cultural differences, we first examined the global null hypotheses, or whether the moment matrices (composite of covariance and means) for the two groups were statistically identical (Model 1). This hypothesis was clearly rejected, (Model 1: v 2 (65, N=195)=124.42, pb.001, CFI=.88, RMSEA=.086). When we took into account separate estimates of the mean structure, however, the model fit became acceptable (Model 2: v 2 (55, N=195)=65.02, pN.05, CFI=.98, RMSEA=.031). Since the v 2-difference between nested Models 1 and 2 was also significant, v 2diff2-1 (10, N=195)=59.4, pb.001, we concluded that Asian American and Anglo American students differed in the mean levels for at least one of the variables in the model. Because Model 2 was not rejected by the data, we retained the null hypothesis indicating that the covariance structure between our Asian American and Anglo American samples did not differ. Therefore, in order to maximize the power for the testing the structural model (Model 3), we combined the two samples for the final test of the mediation model. In order to take differences in the reliability of the scales into account, Model 3 was expanded by integrating a measurement model using random item parceling (Bandalos & Finney, 2001). For the fear of failure construct, the original five items were randomly divided resulting in two indicator scales, with one indicator containing three of the original five items and another indicator containing the remaining two items. Similarly, two indicator scales were created for the nAch construct, the mastery goal construct, and the performance avoidance measure. The nine items for performance-approach were used to form three indicators with three items each. Table 3 displays the correlations between the motives, goals, and outcome measures for the entire sample of students. In the initial specification (Model 3a), a model was fitted where the relations of the motives to outcomes were completely mediated by the three goal orientations. Correlations were only estimated between exogenous latent constructs (fear of failure and nAch). We also allowed free estimation of the covariance of the structural residuals among the three mediator variables (i.e., goal orientations) as well as between the four outcome variables. All errorterms for the indicator variables, however, were assumed to be uncorrelated. This model was rejected by the data (v 2 (73, N=197)=197.57, pb.001, CFI=.92, RMSEA=.10). The modification indices suggested that allowing for four correlations of indicator residuals would improve the model fit significantly. With respect to the comparative fit index and root mean square residual, this final Model 3b fits the data well and is therefore used for interpretation (v 2 (69, N=197)=109.51, pb.001, CFI=.97, RMSEA=.054). Although the step of improving the measurement model was exploratory in nature and capitalizes on chance, we nevertheless should emphasize that the standardized structural model parameters (i.e., regression coefficients between latent constructs) were almost identical between Models 3a and 3b (maximum difference=.02). Therefore, the model misfit was mainly due to constraints in the measurement model and not due to constraints related to the mediation hypothesis. Fig. 1 displays all of the statistically significant standardized path coefficients between the latent constructs according to Model 3b. For ease of presentation, the indicator loadings are not shown; however, as expected, the loadings of each of the indicators with its corresponding latent construct were high, ranging from .75 to .97. The relations between the motives and goals were generally in the expected direction, as were the relations between the goal orientations and the four outcome variables, namely competence perceptions, interest, math performance, and anxiety. More specifically, nAch was found to be a positive predictor of mastery and performance-approach goals, while fear of failure was a significant positive predictor of both performance goals. Mastery goals were found to be a significant

Table 3 Zero order correlations between outcome measures, motives, and goal orientations for total sample 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 A. Zusho et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141–158

1. Fear of failure 1 2. Fear of .71*** failure 2 3. nAch 1 .41*** .21** 4. nAch 2 .34*** .23** .66*** 5. Mastery 1 .02 .06 .33*** .28*** 6. Mastery 2 .05 .04 .23*** .23*** .72*** 7. Performance .41*** .43*** .39*** .41*** .20** .05 approach 1 8. Performance .44*** .46*** .41*** .40*** .19** .08 .90*** approach 2 9. Performance .42*** .40*** .37*** .41*** .13 .04 .82*** .76*** approach 3 10. Performance .45*** .42*** .25*** .30*** .06 .04 .47*** .50*** .35*** Avoid 1 11. Performance .48*** .46*** .38*** .32*** .06 .05 .53*** .58*** .42*** .74*** avoid 2 12. Interest .06 .12 .17* .08 .19** .20** .12 .13 .13 .13 .05 13. Competence .05 .13 .19** .13 .29*** .23*** .34*** .36*** .31*** .05 .04 .42*** 14. Performance .03 .11 .06 .03 .13 .14 .13 .17* .11 .11 .10 .39*** .58*** 15. Anxiety .45*** .34*** .21** .25*** .07 .02 .30*** .33*** .29*** .52*** .55*** .03 .09 .05 Means 3.41 3.23 3.66 3.55 3.76 4.05 2.63 2.61 3.36 1.75 1.96 3.31 3.15 21.56 2.01 S.D. .85 .92 .68 .72 .73 .66 1.16 1.05 1.10 .90 .95 .85 1.09 4.15 .77 N=197. * pb.5. ** pb.01. *** pb.001.

151

152

A. Zusho et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141–158

Fig. 1. Structural model representing the relations of motives to goals to outcomes. Note: only statistically significant standardized path coefficients ( pb.05) are shown. Solid lines represent positive relations and dashed lines represent negative relations.

predictor of both competence perceptions and interest such that students who endorsed these goals more strongly generally reported higher levels of these two outcome measures. Performance-approach goals were found to be a positive predictor of competence perceptions, interest, and mathematics performance. Finally, performance-avoidance goals were found to be a positive predictor of anxiety and negative predictor of the other three outcome measures. These aforementioned findings were all in line with our predictions. We did encounter, however, several unexpected findings regarding the positive relation between nAch and performance-avoidance goals, and the negative relation between fear of failure and mastery goals. In short, the results can be summarized in the following manner. First, independent of significant mean-level differences, we found no discernable cultural difference in the pattern of relations among the motives, goals, and outcomes between our Asian American and Anglo American samples. Second, the achievement motives were found to be differentially related to goals. However, there were no direct effects of the motives on the outcome measures. That is, any effect of the two motives on the outcomes of achievement, interest, anxiety, and competence perceptions was mediated by goals. Finally, the three goal orientations were found to have varying effects on the outcome measures.

4. Discussion In terms of our two research questions concerning differences between Asian American and Anglo American students’ motivational processes, we did uncover some mean-level variation between these two groups of students. Consistent with previous research findings and in line with our predictions,

A. Zusho et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141–158

153

Asian American students on average reported significantly higher levels of fear of failure and endorsed performance-avoidance goals more than the Anglo American students in our sample. They also were higher in anxiety and mathematics performance, although they did not differ in terms of nAch, mastery goals, performance-approach goals, interest, or competence perceptions. These results were consistent with eight out of nine of our predictions for group differences, the only exception was that we had hypothesized Asian Americans would be higher in performance-approach goals, but in fact the two groups were similar on this variable. Taken together, these findings are consistent with previous research that has shown that Asian American students are higher in fear of failure, but that this seemingly negative motive does not seem to have negative consequences for subsequent motivation or performance (Eaton & Dembo, 1997). More importantly, in terms of our second question regarding ethnic group differences in the relations among motives, goals, and outcomes, we found no significant differences in the covariance matrices among the variables for the two groups. This suggests that while there were mean-level differences, the pattern of relations between motives, goals, and the outcomes were similar for these two ethnic groups, at least in this sample of college students. There was little evidence in our data to suggest that the motivational processes underlying achievement-related behaviors were substantially different for Asian Americans in comparison to Anglo Americans. In other words, the generalizations about motives and goals that are derived from the hierarchical model of motivation (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997) and the generalizations about multiple goals and their links to different outcomes suggested by the multiple goals perspective (Harackiewicz et al., 1998, 2002) seem to be valid for Asian Americans as well as Anglo Americans. There are several caveats to this general claim, however, that must be mentioned. It is entirely possible that we were unable to detect cultural differences because of a lack of statistical power due to our relatively small sample size. Some of the zero-order correlations seem to suggest that there may be differences between our Asian American and Anglo American samples in the magnitude of the relations between certain constructs. For example, the results indicate that the two dimensions of performance goals may be much more closely aligned for the Asian American sample than for the Anglo American sample. It may be that Asian Americans are more oriented to the group and other students (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002) and that this orientation leads them to conceive of both performance goals more in terms of social comparison with others, than in terms of the approach-avoidance distinction. This explanation would need to be explored with additional research on the cultural meanings of the different goals and reliance on other measures beside self-reports. This lack of statistical differences could also be attributed to the fact that our sample constituted of Asian Americans, not Asians, who are perhaps more similar to Anglo Americans, given that they have probably been exposed to American values and ideals for a greater length of time than their Asian counterparts who still reside in their native countries. Nevertheless, it should be noted that our findings are not too dissimilar from those of Tanaka and Yamauchi (2001), who applied the hierarchical model of motivation to a sample of Japanese high school girls. Accordingly, there is a need to replicate these findings in a larger, perhaps more diverse, sample of students. Moreover, while these findings support the generalizability of the hierarchical model of motivation to Asian American college students, we nevertheless believe that further research examining the role of culture and context in motivation, cognition, learning, and achievement is sorely needed. We only examined individual level constructs in this study and did not investigate

154

A. Zusho et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141–158

parental or other cultural and contextual factors that could play a role. It may well be that, as Sue and Okazaki (1990) have suggested, in our society Asian Americans often do not have as many avenues for achieving success except in academics and hence may feel more pressure to achieve at high levels academically. It also may be important to examine the motivation and achievement of Asian students in other domains besides mathematics, where there is empirical support documenting their high levels of achievement (Peak, 1996; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992) as well as common stereotypes about their superior math achievement. Finally, the cultural press from parents may play a role and there is a clear need to examine these factors in future research. At the same time, it is crucial that future research on cultural and ethnic differences be based in strong theoretical frameworks (Graham, 1994) that can guide the research. The results of this study suggest that the hierarchical model of motivation is relevant to the achievement of Asian American students and should be pursued, especially in terms of how motives and goals are shaped and socialized by parental, school, and general cultural factors. In terms of the findings concerning the hierarchical model of achievement motivation in general, the results from this study replicate, for the most part, past research findings. Consistent with claims advanced by Elliot and his colleagues (e.g., Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Church, 1997), we, too, found that the achievement motives predict the adoption of certain goal orientations and that these goals, in turn, influence outcomes such as academic achievement, interest, perceptions of competence, and feelings of anxiety. Moreover, our results support the hierarchical assumption that the effects of the two motives on academic outcomes are mediated entirely by achievement goals. In terms of the link between motives and goals, as expected and consistent with Elliot and Church (1997), we found that students who were high in need for achievement were more likely to adopt mastery and performance-approach goals while students who reported higher levels of fear of failure were more likely to adopt performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals. These results bolster the interpretation from the hierarchical model perspective (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Church, 1997) that mastery goals reflect a general positive (i.e., approach) orientation to competence and achievement and channel or regulate the general motive to approach success. In contrast, performance-avoidance goals represent a clearly more negative (i.e., avoidance) orientation towards achievement and serves to mediate the motive to avoid failure. Performance-approach goals, on the other hand, are more complex in terms of regulatory focus and represent aspects of both motives to approach success as well as to fear failure. In particular, it appears that when fear of failure is channeled through performance-approach goals, it can have indirect positive relations to achievement outcomes, in comparison to the less adaptive mediational path from fear of failure through performance-avoidance goals. Our results did differ from previous research in that fear of failure was linked negatively to mastery goals, but this is consistent with mastery goals representing a general positive approach orientation. However, nAch also was positively linked to performance-avoidance goals, a finding that has not emerged in previous studies (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997). It may be that for some high achieving students the motive to approach success also generates some concerns about not wanting to appear incompetent. The participants in this study, with average SAT-M scores in the 600s, are quite skilled mathematically. Thus, the situation that they were placed in may have aroused some concerns regarding not wanting to appear stupid or dumb in math, generating the positive relation between nAch and performance-avoidance goals. This explanation needs to be tested in future studies that use more experimental designs.

A. Zusho et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141–158

155

In terms of the relations between goals and outcomes, the results varied depending on the outcome measure, thus lending support for the multiple goals perspective (Harackiewicz et al., 1998, 2002). In line with our predictions, mastery goals were found to be a positive predictor of outcomes such as interest and perceptions of competence. In terms of performance goals, as expected, performanceavoidance goals were found to have some maladaptive patterns, such as lower achievement scores, lower levels of competence, and higher levels of anxiety. However, in contrast to traditional goal theory and in line with a multiple goals perspective, we found performance-approach goals to have some positive consequences, such that students who were focused on besting others were more likely to obtain higher achievement test scores, have higher levels of interest, and have higher perceptions of their competence following the task. In general, our results reinforce the importance of considering multiple goals and multiple outcomes in research on achievement goals in order to better understand the adaptive and maladaptive patterns of motivation and achievement that are generated by different goals. Finally, in terms of the general limitations of this study, while the results of this study replicate findings obtained in other studies conducted on more varied samples, the college students sampled in this study were of relatively high mathematics aptitude. For the most part, with SAT math scores in the mid to upper 600s, these students would surely be considered by many to be very proficient in mathematics. Accordingly, we acknowledge that motivational patterns of these high aptitude students may differ from a more diverse or lower aptitude sample. Thus, it would be important to replicate these findings in a more brepresentativeQ sample of college students as well as with younger students in order to trace the developmental progression of the motive–goals–outcomes relations. Another limitation has to do with the general correlational design of the study. Although our study was grounded in a strong theoretical framework, our measures were administered in an appropriate temporal sequence, and our use of structural equation modeling suggested a causal sequence, the data are still correlational. Thus, we cannot make strong causal claims about the relations between motives, goals, and outcomes, and that more experimental work is needed to test any strong causal inferences from the model. In addition, studies based in actual classroom settings would provide more ecological validity and support for the general theoretical model. Nevertheless, our results, taken together with previous research, suggest that achievement motives give rise to different achievement goals and that these goals in turn are differentially related to various outcomes. Theoretically, it is important to note that achievement goals serve a regulatory function by mediating individual differences in achievement motives. At the same time, different achievement goals are linked to adaptive and maladaptive patterns of outcomes. In terms of educational implications, our results highlight the adaptive nature of mastery goals as well as performance-approach goals and the maladaptive outcomes of adopting performance-avoidance goals. In short, the results underscore the idea that there is not one specific path to academic success.

Acknowledgements We thank Andy Elliot, Stuart Karabenick, Bill McKeachie, and Allan Wigfield for very helpful comments on an earlier draft.

156

A. Zusho et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141–158

Appendix A Sample questions from the mathematics achievement test

References Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261 – 271. Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides, & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269 – 296). Mahwah, NJ, US7 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Special Issue, 80(5), 706 – 722. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fix indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238 – 246. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136 – 162). Newbury Park7 Sage. Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 67(2), 319 – 333. Chao, R. K. (1996). Chinese and European American mothers’ beliefs about the role of parenting in children’s school success. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(4), 403 – 423.

A. Zusho et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141–158

157

Chen, C., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Motivation and mathematics achievement: A comparative study of Asian-American, Caucasian-American, and East Asian high school students. Child Development, 66, 1213 – 1234. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256 – 273. Eaton, M. J., & Dembo, M. H. (1997). Differences in the motivational beliefs of Asian American and Non-Asian students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 433 – 440. Edwards, A. L. (1954). Edwards personal preference schedule. New York7 The Psychological. Elliot, A., & Harackiewicz, J. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461 – 475. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169 – 189. Elliot, A. J., Chirkov, V. I., Kim, Y., & Sheldon, K. M. (2001). A cross-cultural analysis of avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals. Psychological Science, 12(6), 505 – 510. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218 – 232. Elliot, A. J., & Covington, M. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance motivation. Educational Psychology Review: Special Issue, 13(2), 73 – 92. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2*2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Special Issue, 80(3), 501 – 519. Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5 – 12. Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (1998). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review: Special Issue, 13(2), 139 – 156. ETS (1996). GRE big book: Practicing to take the general test. Princeton, NJ7 Author. Graham, S. (1994). Motivation in African Americans. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 55 – 117. Hao, L., & Bonstead-Bruns, M. (1998, July). Parent–child differences in educational expectations and the academic achievement of immigrant and native students. Sociology of Education, 71, 175 – 198. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist, 33(1), 1 – 21. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 638 – 645. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 316 – 330. Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., & Lehman, D. R. (2001). Cultural differences in self-evaluation: Japanese readily accept negative self-relevant information. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(4), 434 – 443. Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D. R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C., et al. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 599 – 615. Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1997). The cultural construction of self-enhancement: An examination of group-serving biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1268 – 1283. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106(3), 766 – 794. Heine, S. J., Takata, T., & Lehman, D. R. (2000). Beyond self-presentation: Evidence for self-criticism among Japanese. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(1), 71 – 78. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA7 Sage. Jfreskfg, K. G., & Sfrbom, D. (1992). LISREL VIII: A guide to the program and applications. Mooresville, IN7 Scientific Software. Jfreskfg, K. G., & Sfrbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago7 Scientific Software. Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1245 – 1267.

158

A. Zusho et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 15 (2005) 141–158

Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1122 – 1134. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224 – 253. Mau, W. -C. (1997). Parental influences on the high school students’ academic achievement: A comparison of Asian immigrants, Asian-Americans, and White-Americans. Psychology in the Schools, 34(3), 267 – 277. Megargee, E. I. (1972). The California psychological inventory handbook. San Francisco7 Jossey-Bass. Middleton, M. M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An unexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 710 – 718. Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hicks, L., Roeser, R., Urdan, T., Anderman, E., et al. (1997). Patterns of adaptive learning scales. Ann Arbor7 The University of Michigan. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review: Special Issue, 108(2), 291 – 310. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3 – 72. Peak, L. (1996). Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science teaching, learning, curriculum, and achievement in international context. Washington, DC7 U.S Department of Education-National Center for Education Statistics No. NCES 97-198. Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156 – 176. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544 – 555. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667 – 686. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1993). Predictive validity and reliability of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801 – 813. Schnieder, B., & Lee, Y. (1990). A model for academic success: The school and home environment of East Asian students. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 21, 358 – 377. Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 71 – 81. Sfrbom, D. (1981). Structural equation modeling with structured means. In K. G. Jfreskfg, & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation: Causality, structure, and prediction. Amsterdam7 North-Holland. Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47(6), 723 – 729. Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap. New York7 Simon and Schuster. Sue, S., & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian American educational achievements: A phenomenon in search of an explanation. American Psychologist, 45, 913 – 920. Tanaka, A., & Yamauchi, H. (2001). A model for achievement motives, goal orientations, intrinsic interest, and academic achievement. Psychological Reports: Special Issue, 88(1), 123 – 135.