sociocultural antecedents of academic motivation and achievement: role of values and achievement...

Sociocultural antecedents of academic motivation andachievement: Role of values and achievement motives inachievement goals and academic performanceajsp_ 1..13

Gregory Arief D. Liem, Andrew J. Martin, Amy L. Porter and Susan ColmarFaculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

With a view to understand the influence of culture on achievement motivation, the study aimed to test thehypothesized mediating role of individual-oriented and social-oriented achievement motives in linking valueorientations (e.g. achievement, security, conformity, hedonism) to achievement goals (i.e. mastery-approach,mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals) as predictors of English andmathematics achievements. These hypothesized relationships were tested in the one-path analytic model with asample of Indonesian high-school students (n = 356; 46% girls, M age = 16.20 years). The findings showed thatsecurity and conformity values positively predicted social-oriented achievement motive; self-direction valuespositively predicted individual-oriented achievement motive; and hedonism values negatively predicted bothachievement motive orientations. Both individual-oriented and social-oriented achievement motives positivelypredicted mastery-approach and performance-approach goals. Interestingly, social-oriented achievement motivealso positively predicted mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance goals, which in turn, negatively pre-dicted English and mathematic achievement. There was also some evidence for the direct effects of values onperformance-approach goals and achievement. Taken together, the findings evinced the relevance of achievementgoal constructs to Indonesian students and the psychometric properties of the Indonesian version of the Achieve-ment Goals Questionnaire for further use in Indonesia. The study concludes that the meanings of academicmotivation and achievement should be seen from a sociocultural perspective relevant to the context in which theyare being studied.

Key words: achievement, goal, Indonesia, motivation, performance, values.

Introduction

Recent development of research on motivation in educationhas adopted ‘situated’ and ‘sociocultural views of motiva-tion’ (Greeno, 1998; Hickey, 1997), as well as a ‘systemiccultural perspective’ (Kitayama, 2002) in understanding therole that a sociocultural context plays on students’ aca-demic motivation (Pintrich, 2003; McInerney, Walker, &Liem, 2011). According to these perspectives, the key chal-lenge is to understand how cultural practices are linked toand interact with intrapsychological construals, processes,and beliefs in generating motivation (McInerney et al.; Pin-trich). Similarly, Maehr (1974) maintained that to studysociocultural influences on achievement motivation,researchers need to identify socioculturally-rooted basicpersonality constructs associated with achievement motiva-tion (i.e. culture → personality → motivation). Despite theplethora of theoretical and conceptual discussions to date,

empirical studies that investigate sociocultural predictors ofachievement motivation and achievement in the educationalsetting are still scarce.

In this study, we argue that values and achievementmotive orientations are socioculturally-rooted antecedentsof achievement goals because individuals develop thesebasic personality factors through socialization within theirsociocultural context since early childhood. As societiesand cultures are associated with different sets of affor-dances and constraints that facilitate and inhibit the inter-nalization and expression of values (Schwartz, 2005) andmotives (McClelland, 1985; Yu & Yang, 1994), a particularset of values and achievement motive orientations is morestrongly endorsed by individuals in one culture than thosein others. Liem (2006), for example, found that Australianadolescents were higher than their Singaporean, Filipino,and Indonesian counterparts on values serving individualinterests (e.g. self-direction, hedonism), whereas thereverse was true for values serving collective interests (e.g.conformity, security). Similarly, Lieber and Yu (2003) dem-onstrated that US students were higher than their Taiwanesecounterparts in individual-oriented achievement motive,whereas the reverse was true for social-oriented achieve-ment motive.

Correspondence: Gregory Arief D. Liem, Faculty of Educationand Social Work, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.Email: [email protected] 22 October 2010; accepted 13 March 2011.

Asian Journal of Social Psychology

© 2011 The AuthorsAsian Journal of Social Psychology © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and

the Japanese Group Dynamics Association

Asian Journal of Social Psychology (2012), 15, 1–13 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2011.01351.x

The present investigation was set with three aims. First,it sought to test a theoretically–conceptually-hypothesizedmodel predicting the mediating role of achievement motiveorientations in connecting basic values to achievementgoals, which in turn, predict academic performance(Fig. 1). Liem and Nie (2008) have examined how valuesand achievement motives were related to achievementgoals, but their analyses were largely exploratory, centeredon a cross-cultural comparison, used simple multipleregression, and did not include achievement outcomes.Thus, the hypothesized relationships in Figure 1 have notbeen tested before, and in the present study, were tested inthe one path analytic model with Indonesian high-schoolstudents.

While prior studies with Western students have exam-ined the relationships between achievement motives andgoals (e.g. Elliot & Church, 1997), the achievement motiveconstructs used were self-oriented in nature (see Spence,1985). However, it was argued that social-oriented achieve-ment motive might better explain achievement behaviors inEastern societies, including Indonesia, where conformity isemphasized, and the role of adults in adolescents’ aca-demic trajectory might be different from that in the West(Yu & Yang, 1994). Thus, by distinguishing individual-oriented achievement motive from its social-oriented coun-terpart, the second aim was to assess their potentiallydifferential effects on four types of achievement goals (i.e.mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals; Elliot &McGregor, 2001).

Third, the study aimed to test the relevance of achieve-ment goal theory and the Achievement Goals Questionnaire(AGQ; Elliot & McGregor, 2001) to Indonesian students,who are culturally different from those in the West, wherethe theory has typically been applied. In this regard, Segall,Lonner, and Berry (1998) stated that it is important to test

predominantly Western-developed psychological perspec-tives by applying them in different cultures, and at the sametime, discover new aspects of the psychological phenom-enon being studied from local cultural lenses. As such, itwas our interest to assess the extent to which the nomologi-cal relations of achievement goals to their antecedents andconsequences found in the West hold true for Indonesianstudents.

Achievement goals: A hierarchicalmodel of approach–avoidancemotivation

A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance motivation(Elliot, 1999, 2006) defines achievement goal as a cognitiverepresentation concerning an end-state that students arecommitted to pursue (i.e. approach motivation) or to stayaway from (i.e. avoidance motivation). Based on an evalu-ation standard of competence that students use (i.e. intrap-ersonal or interpersonal), the model posits four types ofachievement goals: mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance,performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals(Cury, Elliot, Fonseca, & Moller, 2006; Elliot & McGregor,2001). Students motivated by mastery-approach goals aimto develop their competence based on their intrapersonalstandard (i.e. to improve their competence), whereas stu-dents motivated by mastery-avoidance goals focus onavoiding intrapersonal incompetence (i.e. not to performworse than their own past achievement). Students pursuingperformance-approach goals aim to develop competencebased on an interpersonal or normative standard (i.e. todemonstrate that they are more competent than others),whereas students driven by performance-avoidance goalsfocus on avoiding normative incompetence (i.e. not toperform worse than others).

Figure 1 Hypothesized model ofthe relationships between values,achievement motive orientations,achievement goals, and acade-mic achievement.

Conformity

Achievement

Security

Hedonism

Self-direction

Social-orientedachievement

motive

Individual-oriented achievement

motive

Performance-approach

goals

Mastery-approach

goals

Performance-avoidance

goals

Mastery-avoidance

goals

Englishend-semester

grades

Basicvalues

Achievementgoals

Academicachievement

Achievementmotives

Mathematics end-semester

grades

+

+

+

_

_

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

?

?

?

?

_

_

_

_

2 Gregory Arief D. Liem et al.

© 2011 The AuthorsAsian Journal of Social Psychology © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology andthe Japanese Group Dynamics Association

Achievement goals effects onacademic performance

Studies have shown a general pattern that both mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance goals were negativepredictors of academic performance (Cury et al., 2006) orother psychoeducational factors leading to lower grades,including avoidance of help seeking, disorganization,worry, test anxiety, and surface processing (Elliot &McGregor, 2001; Moller & Elliot, 2006). In view of thesefindings, we hypothesized negative relationships betweenthe two avoidance-based achievement goals and achieve-ment (Fig. 1).

However, the effects of mastery-approach andperformance-approach goals on achievement were mixed(Linnenbrink-Garcia, Tyson, & Patall, 2008). While someresearchers (e.g. Cury et al., 2006; Phillips & Gully, 1997)found positive effects of mastery-approach goals onachievement, others (e.g. Elliot & Church, 1997) found nosignificant association. Similarly, performance-approachgoals positively predicted achievement in some studies (e.g.Cury et al.; Elliot & Church; Elliot & McGregor, 2001), butfailed to be so in others (e.g. Grant & Dweck, 2003, seeStudy 5; Ng, 2006; Pintrich, 2000). As the nature of therelationships between achievement and the two approach-based achievement goals are inconsistent across studies, itwas our interest to explore how they are related for Indo-nesian students (Fig. 1).

Achievement motives as antecedent ofachievement goals

As a centerpiece of the hierarchical model, achievementgoals are not only posited to lead to achievement, but arealso catalyzed by different sources. Competence-basedvariables (e.g. achievement motive, fear of failure) andrelationally-based variables (e.g. affiliation motive, fear ofrejection) are among intrapsychological antecedents ofachievement goal endorsement (Elliot, 1999, 2006). In theprocess of their satisfaction or realization, these individualdispositions are transformed into cognitive representationsand provide ‘reasons’ that catalyze the extent to whichachievement goals are endorsed by students (Elliot). Thus,for example, a student might study with an aim to show thathe/she is better than other students (i.e. pursuing aperformance-approach goal), and this goal might bepursued in order to experience a sense of pride or success(i.e. based on his/her achievement motive) or to win others’acceptance or approval (i.e. based on his/her affiliationmotive). Studies have shown that achievement motive posi-tively predicted mastery-approach and performance-approach goals, whereas fear of failure positively predictedmastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance goals(Diseth & Kobbeltvedt, 2010; Elliot & Church, 1997;Zusho, Pintrich, & Cortina, 2005).

However, as argued by Spence (1985), competence-related constructs that have been studied as predictors ofachievement goals were characteristically ‘individual-oriented’ or mirror individualist values (see also McClel-land, 1985). Less frequently studied are ‘other-oriented’competence-related predictors (but see e.g. Bernardo, 2008;Chang & Wong, 2008). In view of this, the present studysought to fill the gap in the literature by distinguishingindividual-oriented and social-oriented achievementmotives and assessing their potentially differential effectson the four types of achievement goals.

Individual-oriented and social-oriented achievementmotives. Yu and Yang (1994) argued that individual-oriented achievement motive might not fully explicateachievement-related processes and outcomes in Eastern andcollectivist cultures, in which individuals prioritize theprimacy of their family’s goals and accomplishments thanthose of their own. Further, in collectivist cultures, confor-mity values and social norms play a key role in individuals’behaviors, more so than individual personality dispositions(Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). As such, Yuand Yang introduced ‘social-oriented achievement motive’and juxtaposed this concept with its individual-orientedcounterpart that captures the essence of achievementmotive proposed in the Western research tradition.

Yu and Yang (1994) conceptualized achievement motiveorientation as a cognitively-based general inclination thatenergizes behavior and orients individuals to pursue acertain achievement standard. Specifically, they definedindividual-oriented achievement motive as an inclination toachieve a self-determined standard of excellence pursuedwith one’s preferred ways and evaluated based on one’sown judgement, whereas social-oriented achievementmotive was defined as an inclination to achieve a standardof excellence set by significant others (e.g. teachers,parents) that is pursued and evaluated according to the waysand the standards determined by others. Thus, individual-oriented and social-oriented achievement motives differ inthe extent that self-reliance and autonomy, as opposed toconformity and moral obligation, are valued by individuals.In view of prior findings (e.g. Bernardo, 2008; Diseth &Kobbeltvedt, 2010), individual-oriented achievementmotive was hypothesized to be positively related to bothmastery-approach and performance-approach goals(Fig. 1).

In contrast, socially-motivated students are driven tostudy, with an aim to meet others’ expectations (Yu &Yang,1994). In this respect, social-oriented achievement motiveis considered an approach-based motivation, and as such, islikely to lead students to adopt approach-based goals.Indeed, studies have demonstrated the presence of socialreasons in the construction of approach-based achievementgoals (Bernardo, 2008; Bernardo & Ismail, 2010; Chang &

Values, motives, goals, and achievement 3



Wong, 2008; Tao & Hong, 2000; Urdan & Mestas, 2006).Bernardo, for example, argued that the similar effects ofperformance-approach and mastery-approach goals onachievement found with Filipino students seemed to beattributable to a similar reason, that is, an intention to fulfillmoral obligations and parental expectations. Similarly,Urdan (2004) envisaged that students with a weak familyorientation might pursue performance goals for egoenhancement purposes, whereas those with a strongerfamily orientation might do so for moral obligations pur-poses. Thus, we hypothesized positive relationshipsbetween social-oriented achievement motive and mastery-approach and performance-approach goals (Fig. 1).

However, social psychology research (see e.g. Gleason,Iida, Shrout, & Bolger, 2008) has shown that receivingsocial support might lead to opposing effects that not onlygive rise to a sense of encouragement, but also increasesdistress. In academic settings, students’ attempt to meettheir parents’ and teachers’ educational expectations mightgive rise to a perceived pressure and fear of failure inmeeting such social expectations (Lew, Allen, Papouchis, &Ritzler, 1998). Along this line of reasoning, Sideridis(2008) found that, out of their obligation to their parents orteachers, students were likely to feel obliged to do well (i.e.ought approach) or not to fail (i.e. ought avoidance), withthe former associated with more adaptive outcomes, such ashigher positive affect and persistence, than the latter. Inview of all these, alongside its positive effects on the twoapproach-based goals, social-oriented achievement motivewas also predicted to lead to the adoption of avoidance-based goals (Fig. 1).

Mediation of achievementmotive orientations

Despite their conceptual differences, achievement motivesand goals share a commonality in terms of the role thatvalues might play as their underlying antecedents. Elliot(2006, p. 114) maintained that individuals’ ‘cultural valuesand norms serve as other sources of motivation that underliegoals as well’.Yu andYang (1994) have similarly echoed thatan individual’s value system is a key determinant of thesalience of individual-oriented achievement motive over itssocial-oriented counterpart, or vice versa. In support of theseviews, Schwartz (2005) conceptualized values as desirable,abstract, and broad (trans-situational) motivational goalsthat serve as guiding principles of individuals’ more specificmotives, goals, and behaviors. This suggests that, given thenature of values as ‘abstract’, ‘broad’, and ‘trans-situational’motivational goals, values underpin ‘orientation-specific’achievement motives and ‘situation-specific’ goals, andbecause values guide individuals to pursue ‘desirable’goals,they too are approach-based goals (Schwartz).

From a developmental perspective, both values andachievement motive orientations are internalized by indi-viduals through socialization processes since early child-hood within their sociocultural milieu (McClelland, 1985;Schwartz, 2005), whereas achievement goals develop laterin life, as individuals respond to the various aspects in theschool context (Elliot, 1999, 2006), such as the subjectslearned or the evaluation methods implemented. In view ofthis, the relation between values and achievement motivesmight be more proximal than the relation between valuesand achievement goals. Thus, we hypothesized that the linkbetween values and achievement goals would be mediatedby achievement motives (Fig. 1).

Values and achievement motives

Schwartz (2005) theorized 10 values (i.e. security, confor-mity, tradition, benevolence, universalism, self-direction,stimulation, hedonism, achievement, and power) that arepan-culturally recognized, including among middle adoles-cents (Liem, Martin, Nair, Bernardo, & Prasetya, 2011).According to Schwartz (2005), these 10 values differ intheir underlying motivational goals, and these differencesprovided the present study a conceptual reason of howvalues might relate to the two achievement motive orienta-tions. Specifically, self-direction and achievement valueswere expected to positively relate to individual-orientedachievement motive, because the independence in thinkingand doing things in one’s own ways and the importance ofpersonal achievement underlying self-direction andachievement values, respectively, correspond with the incli-nation to achieve one’s self-determined accomplishment.Conformity and security values were expected to positivelyrelate to social-oriented achievement motive, because theimportance of submitting one’s self to social expectationsor norms (conformity) and the emphasis on maintainingsafety and harmony of one’s self and one’s relationshipswith others (security) are consistent with the inclination topursue achievements determined and evaluated by signifi-cant others (parents, teachers). Nonetheless, hedonismvalues were expected to negatively associate with bothindividual-oriented and social-oriented achievementmotives, because the pursuit of pleasure and sensuous grati-fication underlying the motivational goals of hedonismvalues are in conflict with the pursuit of educational accom-plishment that requires delaying one’s gratification of plea-sures. These predictions are depicted in Figure 1.

Present study

With a view to better understand the psychological mecha-nism through which culture influences achievement moti-vation, the present study aimed to examine the relationships



of values, achievement motive orientations, achievementgoals, and achievement in the one-path analytic model(Fig. 1). Extending previous research (e.g. Diseth & Kob-beltvedt, 2010), we distinguished between individual-oriented and social-oriented achievement motives, andassessed their potentially differential roles in mediating thelink between values and achievement goals. Aligned withsociocultural and situated views of achievement motivation(Greeno, 1998; Hickey, 1997; Maehr, 1974; McInerneyet al., 2011; Pintrich, 2003), values and achievementmotive orientations are sociocultural antecedents that giverise to achievement goals and achievement. The study wasconducted within an Indonesian context, which provided anavenue to test the cross-cultural generalizability and appli-cability of achievement goal theory and the AGQ (Elliot &McGregor, 2001), originating from the Western context, toIndonesian students who are relatively underrepresented inthe social and educational psychology literature.

Method

Participants and procedure

The sample comprised 356 high-school students (165girls), with a mean age of 16.20 years (SD = 0.89; range14–19 years). These students were drawn from a large,non-selective high school in Indonesia. The administrationof the survey was carried out in the classroom setting by thefirst author, who was assisted by two research assistants atthe beginning of the second semester of the academic year(there are two semesters in the academic year).

Measures

We used pre-existing multi-item instruments to measureachievement goals, achievement motive orientations, andvalues. In this study, these instruments were translated intoBahasa Indonesian. Following a translation–back-translation procedure, recommended by cross-culturalresearch methodologists (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997),we first translated the items into Indonesian, following byan English-Indonesian bilingual back-translation intoEnglish (see also Liem, 2006; Liem et al., 2011). We thenchecked the back-translation result to ensure that the con-ceptual meaning embedded in each item was equivalent tothe English version.

Achievement goals. The Achievement Goal Questionaire(AGQ) (Elliot & McGregor, 2001) used in this study com-prised four three-item subscales measuring mastery-approach goals (a = 0.85; e.g. ‘I want to learn as much aspossible from this class’), mastery-avoidance goals(a = 0.86; e.g. ‘I worry that I might not learn all that I

possibly could in this class’), performance-approach goals(a = 0.89; e.g. ‘It is important for me to do better than otherstudents’), and performance-avoidance goals (a = 0.77;e.g. ‘I just want to avoid doing poorly in this class’). Par-ticipants responded to these items on a seven-point scale(1 = ‘not at all true of me’ to 7 = ‘very true of me’).

As described earlier, the study aimed to provide evi-dence of the validity and reliability of the Bahasa Indone-sian version of the AGQ (or the AGQ-BI) for use withIndonesian students. To this end, confirmatory factoranalysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the fit betweenour participants’ responses to the AGQ-BI and the achieve-ment goals structure validated by Elliot and McGregor(2001). The measurement model tested comprised fourinterrelated latent factors representing the four achieve-ment goal constructs, and each of these latent factors wascomposed of three indicators (observed variables) repre-senting the three constituent items of each achievementgoal subscale. The result evinced an excellent fit betweenthe data and the model [c2 = (49, n = 356) = 159.01, com-parative fit index (CFI) = 0.95, and the root mean squareerror of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.08] (see StatisticalAnalysis for fit index criteria). Further, all item indicatorsloaded significantly (p < 0.001) on their a priori latentfactor, ranging between 0.77 and 0.86 for mastery-approach goals items, between 0.74 and 0.91 for mastery-avoidance goal items, between 0.80 and 0.89 forperformance-approach goal items, and between 0.52 and0.78 for performance-avoidance goal items. Overall, thisanalysis demonstrated that the four AGQ-BI subscales areinternally consistent measures, and the four achievementgoals are empirically robust and separable constructs.These findings provided evidence of the relevance of theachievement goal constructs and the psychometric proper-ties of the AGQ for use with Indonesian students.

Social-oriented and individual-oriented achievementmotive. The Orientations of Achievement Motive Scale(OAMS; Yu & Yang, 1994) was used to measure social-oriented and individual-oriented achievement motives. Inthis study, each of the two motives was measured by nineitems (a = 0.84 for social-oriented achievement motive,e.g. ‘I usually try my best to do the things my parents thinkare valuable’; a = 0.81 for individual-oriented achievementmotive, e.g. ‘I evaluate my performance based on my ownset of expectations’). Participants responded to the OAMSitems on a seven-point scale (1 = ‘not at all true of me’ to7 = ‘very true of me’). CFA was performed to test the fitbetween the data and the measurement model comprisingtwo related latent factors representing the two achievementmotive orientations with their respective constituent itemsas observed variables. The analysis showed a goodfit [c2 = (127, n = 356) = 303.30, CFI = 0.92, andRMSEA = 0.06]. All the factor loadings were significant at




p < 0.001, ranging between 0.44 and 0.63 for individual-oriented achievement motive items, and between 0.49 and0.66 for social-oriented achievement motive items.

Values. The Portraits Values Questionnaire (PVQ; Liem,2006; Liem et al., 2011; Schwartz, 2005) is a 40-iteminstrument to measure 10 basic values. The PVQ used inthis study comprised short, verbal portraits of people. Eachitem described a person’s goals and aspirations that pointimplicitly to the importance of a value orientation (e.g.‘Being very successful is important to him. He likes toimpress other people’, an achievement value item). Torespond to PVQ items, participants were asked, ‘How muchlike you is this person?’, and a six-point rating scale(1 = ‘not like me at all’ to 6 = ‘very much like me’) wasprovided. Internal consistency of the 10 value subscalesranged from 0.47 (tradition) to 0.80 (hedonism), with amedian of 0.60. The somewhat low alpha for some valuesubscales was not unexpected, because each of the valueconstructs has a broad conceptualization and was measuredby a small number of items in the PVQ (most of the valuesare operationalized by 3 or 4 items; Schwartz). The PVQhas been used to measure values in many different cultures,and is suitable for use with adolescents (Liem; Liem et al.;Schwartz). It is important to note that, given that the PVQis meant to measure values theoretically structured in acircumplex model, the measure should appropriately vali-dated using multidimensional scaling, and the circumplexstructure has been demonstrated among Indonesian adoles-cents (Liem et al.).

Achievement. Students’ final grades in mathematics andEnglish were used as indicators of their academic achieve-ment. These grades were obtained from the school at theend of the second semester upon permission by the schoolprincipal.

Statistical analysis

CFA and path analysis, performed with AMOS (seeArbuckle & Wothke, 1999; Byrne, 2010), were conductedto test the measurement models reported earlier (see Mea-sures) and the hypothesized model in Figure 1. In the pathanalysis, researchers posit an a priori structure and test theability of a solution based on this structure to fit the data bydemonstrating that: (i) the solution is well defined; (ii)parameter estimates are consistent with theory and a prioripredictions; and (iii) the c2 and subjective fit indices arereasonable (McDonald & Marsh, 1990). Maximum likeli-hood was the method of estimation used for the models.Following recommendations on establishing model fit(Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004), the CFI, RMSEA, c2-teststatistic, and an evaluation of parameter estimates wereused in the present research to assess model fit. The

RMSEA index is less affected by sample size than the c2

test statistic, and values at or less than 0.08 and 0.05 aretaken to reflect acceptable and excellent fit, respectively(Yuan, 2005). The CFI varies along a 0 to 1 continuum, inwhich values at or greater than 0.90 and 0.95 are typicallytaken to reflect acceptable and excellent fit to the data,respectively (McDonald & Marsh, 1990). The CFI containsno penalty for a lack of parsimony so that improved fit dueto the introduction of additional parameters might reflectcapitalization on chance, whereas the RMSEA containspenalties for a lack of parsimony (Yuan, 2005). In thepresent study, there was less than 5% missing data. Thus,the Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm was consid-ered an appropriate procedure to impute missing values.

Results

Preliminary analyses

Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) and distri-butional properties (skewness, kurtosis) for each of thesubscales used in the study are presented in Table 1. Thedistributional properties of subscales approximated anormal distribution, as indicated by relatively low skewnessand kurtosis values. Table 1 also shows that most of thecorrelations between values, achievement motives, goals,and achievement were consistent with the predicted direc-tions. These preliminary results provided support to testinghypothesized relationships in the one path analytic modelthat takes into account shared variances among variables.1

Path analysis

Path analysis was performed to test the hypothesized modeldepicted in Figure 1. In this model, all factors within thesame group of constructs (i.e. all the five value orientationfactors, the two achievement motive orientation factors, allthe four achievement goal factors, and the two achievementindicators) were allowed to be correlated with eachother. The result indicated that the data fit the modelwell [c2 = (41, n = 356) = 100.89, CFI = 0.94, andRMSEA = 0.06], and most of the paths were significant(p < 0.05) and in the hypothesized directions. Modificationindices suggested that adding paths from security and con-formity to English achievement, a path from achievementvalue to performance-approach goals, and a path from self-direction value to math achievement would significantlyreduce c2. As these paths were conceptually justified, and ina bid to obtain a model that best represented the data, weconsecutively freed these paths to be estimated. This analy-sis showed that the data fit the modified model even better[c2 = (38, n = 356) = 73.04, CFI = 0.97, and RMSEA =0.05]. A number of non-significant paths, however, were



Tab

le1

Des

crip

tive

stat

isti

csan

dco

rrel

atio

ns

of

the

vari

able

sin

the

stu

dy

No.

Var

iabl

e1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

18

Val

ues

1.Se

curi

ty–

2.C

onfo

rmity

0.21

–3.

Tra

ditio

n0.

140.

33–

4.B

enev

olen

ce-0

.17

0.09

0.13

–5.

Uni

vers

alis

m0.

080.

030.

170.

17–

6.Se

lf-D

irec

tion

-0.2

7-0

.22

-0.2

2-0

.11

-0.1

9–

7.St

imul

atio

n-0

.38

-0.4

0-0

.33

-0.0

6-0

.10

0.26

–8.

Hed

onis

m-0

.27

-0.3

7-0

.35

-0.2

7-0

.38

-0.0

80.

11–

9.A

chie

vem

ent

-0.2

1-0

.24

-0.3

8-0

.30

-0.3

8-0

.01

-0.0

20.

14–

10.

Pow

er-0

.19

-0.3

3-0

.42

-0.3

3-0

.45

0.00

0.07

0.26

0.30

–A

chie

vem

ent

mot

ives

11.

SOA

M0.

320.

290.

08-0

.02

0.06

-0.1

2-0

.13

-0.2

3-0

.06

-0.1

6–

12.

IOA

M0.

110.

130.

040.

010.

150.

14-0

.06

-0.2

9-0

.07

-0.1

10.

64–

Ach

ieve

men

tgo

als

13.

Perf

orm

ance

appr

oach

0.27

0.12

0.00

-0.0

7-0

.01

-0.1

4-0

.18

-0.1

50.

17- 0

.05

0.58

0.45

–14

.Pe

rfor

man

ceav

oida

nce

0.02

-0.0

9-0

.11

-0.1

5-0

.16

-0.0

40.

030.

220.

100.

120.

120.

030.

08–

15.

Mas

tery

appr

oach

0.14

0.19

0.08

0.07

0.22

-0.0

6-0

.12

-0.2

5-0

.12

-0.1

20.

560.

540.

45-0

.07

–16

.M

aste

ryav

oida

nce

0.02

0.00

0.07

0.01

0.03

-0.1

30.

000.

04-0

.07

0.01

0.17

0.06

0.06

0.27

0.22

–A

chie

vem

ent

outc

omes

17.

Mat

hac

hiev

emen

t-0

.03

-0.0

4-0

.07

0.05

0.01

0.18

0.01

-0.0

50.

03-0

.07

0.08

-0.1

40.

13-0

.23

0.09

-0.2

0–

18.

Eng

lish

achi

evem

ent

-0.1

6-0

.14

-0.1

50.

100.

080.

110.

020.

010.

120.

01-0

.04

0.06

0.09

-0.1

90.

06-0

.24

0.52

–M

4.53

4.46

4.05

4.62

4.66

4.53

4.37

4.18

4.49

3.40

4.94

5.00

5.22

4.87

5.19

4.87

65.5

867

.02

SD0.

720.

740.

740.

740.

680.

700.

841.

110.

82.9

90.

990.

891.

371.

481.

231.

488.

487.

48Sk

ewne

ss-0

.54

-0.2

8-0

.24

-0.5

0-0

.60

-0.2

7-0

.35

-0.2

7-0

.34

0.31

-0.2

3-0

.22

-0.7

4-0

.49

-0.7

2-0

.54

0.08

-0.2

4K

urto

sis

0.26

-0.1

4- 0

.05

0.79

0.17

-0.0

5-0

.24

-0.6

8-0

.13

-0.4

5-0

.30

0.06

0.22

-0.2

10.

44-0

.28

0.51

0.54

Not

e:|0

.11|

�r

<|0

.14|

are

sign

ifica

ntat

p<

0.05

;|0.

14|�

r�

|0.1

8|ar

esi

gnifi

cant

atp

<0.

01;a

ndr

>|0

.18|

are

sign

ifica

ntat

p<

0.00

1.IO

AM

,ind

ivid

ual-

orie

nted

achi

evem

ent

mot

ive;

SOA

M,s

ocia

l-or

ient

edac

hiev

emen

tm

otiv

e.Sh

aded

corr

elat

ions

are

the

hypo

thes

ized

inte

rcon

stru

ctre

latio

nshi

ps.




noted. They were the paths from mastery-approach goals toEnglish achievement (b = -0.08, t = -1.37) and to mathachievement (b = 0.05, t = 0.90), and the path fromachievement values to individual-oriented achievementmotive (b = -0.06, t = -1.56). These paths were thendropped from the model, which was then re-tested. Thisanalysis resulted in a similar range of fit indices to theearlier analysis [c2 = (41, n = 356) = 80.32, CFI = 0.96, andRMSEA = 0.05]. It needed to be noted, however, thatalthough the path from performance-approach goals toEnglish achievement in the model was significant(b = 0.17, p < 0.001, see Fig. 2, Table 2), the correlationbetween the two was marginally significant (r = 0.09,p = 0.08, see Table 1). Therefore, this path should be inter-preted with caution. The evaluation of the final model,which suggested that all other paths were within the accept-able range, did not drastically differ from their correlation,and there was no indication of multicollinearity or a sup-pression effect. Figure 2 shows the final empirical model,and Table 2 provides a summary of direct, indirect, andtotal effects of the relationships among variables in themodel.2

Discussion

The main purpose of the study was to test the relation-ships of values, achievement motives, achievement goals,and achievement in the one-path analytic model. Thestudy also aimed to provide evidence of the cross-culturalgeneralizability of achievement goal theory and the appli-cability of one of its internationally widely-used mea-sures, the AGQ (Elliot & McGregor, 2001), for use withIndonesian students who have been relatively underrepre-sented in the extant social and educational psychologyliterature.

Achievement motives andachievement goals

As predicted, individual-oriented achievement motive wasassociated with the adoption of mastery-approach andperformance-approach goals. Consistent with the hierarchi-cal model of achievement motivation (Elliot, 2006) and thesimilar pattern found with Western students (e.g. Elliot &Church, 1997), this result extended the cross-cultural gen-eralizability of the relationship between achievement motiveand the two approach goals to Indonesian students. What iseven more interesting was the finding showing that social-oriented achievement motive was associated with bothapproach- and avoidance-based goals. This finding suggeststhat students’ attempts to meet their parents’ and teachers’educational expectations energized them to do well in theiracademic endeavor by developing their academic compe-tence (when adopting mastery-approach goals) and by per-forming better than other students (when adoptingperformance-approach goals). However, it appeared thatothers’ educational expectations might also give rise to apressure and fear of failure felt by the students. When thiswas the case, socially-motivated students were inclined tostudy in order to avoid the possibility of not optimallymastering the lesson or not achieving grades on par withthose previously obtained (when adopting mastery-avoidance goals) and to avoid looking less competent thantheir peers (when adopting performance-avoidance goals).

This finding shared a commonality with that of Sideridis(2008), who maintained that, out of an intention to fulfilltheir moral duties to significant others, students might adopteither ‘ought approach’ (when they feel obliged to do well)or ‘ought avoidance’ (when they feel obliged not to fail), orboth. Aligned with these ought-related concepts, we toofound that students who were motivated to study to meettheir parents’ or teachers’ educational expectationswere likely to adopt both approach- and avoidance-based

Figure 2 Empirical model of therelations of values, achievementmotivation orientations, achieve-ment goals, and academic out-comes. All path coefficients aresignificant at p < 0.05. For theclarity of presentation, correlationsbetween factors within the samegroup of constructs are not shown.



achievement goals. It should be noted, however, that Sideri-dis (2008) did not incorporate into his conceptualization ofthe ought approach and ought avoidance the evaluativestandard (intrapersonal or interpersonal) against which stu-dents might use to judge how well they perform on anacademic task. Our finding provided indirect evidence forthis. That is, when students used a normative evaluationstandard, it seemed ought approach motivated them to dowell in their school work in order to outperform otherstudents in the class, or when students used an intrapersonalevaluative standard, ought approach tended to orient them todevelop competence or to obtain grades that were better thanwhat they had previously achieved. Similarly, when studentsused a normative evaluation standard, ought avoidancedrove them not to fail in their school work, such that theycould avoid appearing less competent than their classmates,or when students used a personalized evaluation standard,they tried not to obtain grades that were lower than theirprevious ones. Taken together, our findings hold a theoreticalimplication to the meaning behind achievement goals andcontribute to the growing body of research that seeks toidentify social reasons underlying the achievement goaladoption.

Achievement goals and achievement

Research with Western students has shown that, comparedwith avoidance-oriented achievement goals, approach-oriented achievement goals were generally more adaptivein facilitating students’ academic functioning and promot-ing their performances (Moller & Elliot, 2006). We toofound some evidence that, for Indonesian students,mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance goals nega-tively predicted achievement, whereas performance-approach goals positively predicted achievement. Further,consistent with a comprehensive review by Linnenbrink-Garcia et al. (2008), we found that mastery-approach goalswere not predictive of academic achievement. This finding,however, was not surprising, as mastery-approach goal-oriented students might jeopardize their academic perfor-mance by spending time and effort in gratifying theirpersonal interests in certain topics at the expense of lessinteresting ones (Senko & Miles, 2008). On the whole, therelationships between achievement goals and achievementfound in this study, alongside with the psychometric prop-erties (i.e. factor structure, internal consistency) of theIndonesian version of the AGQ (Elliot & McGregor, 2001),provided evidence for the relevance of achievement goalconstructs and the AGQ for Indonesian students.

Role of values in academic motivationand achievement

As expected, we found that security and conformity valuespositively predicted social-oriented achievement motive,T

ab

le2

Su

mm

ary

of

dir

ect,

ind

irec

t,an

dto

tal

effe

cts

inp

red

icti

ng

ach

ieve

men

tm

oti

ves,

ach

ieve

men

tg

oal

s,an

dac

adem

icp

erfo

rman

ce

Eff

ects

onSO

AM

Eff

ects

onIO

AM

Eff

ects

onm

aste

ryap

proa

ch

Eff

ects

onm

aste

ryav

oida

nce

Eff

ects

onpe

rfor

man

ceap

proa

ch

Eff

ects

onpe

rfor

man

ceav

oida

nce

Eff

ects

onE

nglis

hac

hiev

emen

tE

ffec

tson

mat

hac

hiev

emen

t

DI

TD

IT

DI

TD

IT

DI

TD

IT

DI

TD

IT

Val

ues

Secu

rity

0.21

–0.

21–

––

–0.

080.

08–

0.04

0.04

–0.

110.

11–

0.03

0.03

-0.1

6-0

.01

-0.1

7–

0.01

0.01

Con

form

ity0.

17–

0.17

––

––

0.06

0.06

–0.

030.

03–

0.08

0.08

–0.

020.

02-0

.12

-0.0

1-0

.13

–0.

010.

01H

edon

ism

-0.1

2–

-0.1

2-0

.28

–-0

.28

–-0

.13

-0.1

3–

-0.0

2-0

.02

–-0

.10

-0.1

0–

-0.0

2-0

.02

–0.

010.

01–

-0.0

1-0

.01

Ach

ieve

men

t–

––

––

––

––

––

–0.

22–

0.22

––

––

0.04

0.04

–0.

040.

04Se

lf-d

irec

tion

––

–0.

15–

0.15

–0.

050.

05–

––

–0.

020.

02–

––

––

–0.

16–

0.16

Ach

ieve

men

tm

otiv

esSO

AM

0.36

–0.

360.

17–

0.17

0.50

–0.

500.

12–

0.12

–0.

030.

03–

0.04

0.04

IOA

M0.

31–

0.31

––

–0.

14–

0.14

––

––

0.02

0.02

–0.

030.

03A

chie

vem

ent

goal

sM

aste

ryap

proa

ch–

––

––

–M

aste

ry-a

void

ance

-0.2

1–

-0.2

1-0

.14

–-0

.14

Perf

orm

ance

-app

roac

h0.

17–

0.17

0.18

–0.

18Pe

rfor

man

ceav

oida

nce

-0.1

5–

-0.1

5-0

.20

–-0

.20

Not

e.b

>|0

.10|

sign

ifica

ntat

p<

0.05

;b

>|0

.07|

sign

ifica

ntat

p<

0.10

;D

,di

rect

effe

ct,

I,in

dire

ctef

fect

,IO

AM

,in

divi

dual

-ori

ente

dac

hiev

emen

tm

otiv

e;SO

AM

,so

cial

-ori

ente

dac

hiev

emen

tm

otiv

e;T,

tota

lef

fect

.Sh

aded

regr

essi

onw

eigh

tsar

eth

ehy

poth

esiz

edre

latio

nshi

ps.I

talic

ized

regr

essi

onw

eigh

tsre

pres

ent

path

sad

ded

post

-hoc

.




self-direction values positively predicted individual-oriented achievement motive, and hedonism values nega-tively predicted both achievement motive orientations.Contrary to our prediction, however, achievement valuespositively predicted performance-approach goals, but notindividual-oriented achievement motive. Further concep-tual analysis of the underlying goal of achievement valuessuggested that these values guide individuals to gain socialrecognition and respect by pursuing a personal successbased on a normative standard (Schwartz, 2005). Thisunderlying motivational goal seems more compatible withthe aim of adopting performance-approach goals (Elliot,1999). As maintained by Boekaerts, de Koning, and Vedder(2006), Schwartz’s basic value theory can be useful as atheoretical framework to guide our understanding of theconflict and compatibility of the various goals that studentsbring into the academic setting (i.e. social goals, academicgoals). Our study provided among the first empirical evi-dence towards this understanding.

Interestingly, there was also some evidence that valueswere direct predictors of academic achievement. First, wefound that students’ security and conformity values directlypredicted their English achievement. This finding might berelated to the characteristic of our sample that comprisedIndonesian students whose native language is Indonesian,and for whom English is a foreign language.As theorized bySchwartz (2005), individuals who are higher in these con-servative values are those who are more committed to pursueharmonious relationships with their society (aligned with themotivational goals of security values) and more inclined tocomply with the social norms (aligned with the motivationalgoals of conformity values) than those who are low on thesevalues. For our sample, adherence to security and confor-mity values might have guided them to adopt local customsand traditions, including the use of language, and might haveoriented them away from learning and using foreign lan-guages. As a consequence, the English proficiency of stu-dents high on conservative values might have not developedas well as those lower on these values.

Second, we found that self-direction values directly pre-dicted mathematic achievement. Schwartz (2005) main-tained that self-direction values are derived from humanneeds for learning and mastery. When these needs are sat-isfied, individuals feel self-sufficient and autonomous, asthe acquisition and mastery of skills and knowledge enablethem to do things more independently. In relation to thepresent finding, it was likely that, compared to studentswho were low on self-direction values, those who werehigh on these values might have attributed higher impor-tance to autonomy and independence, which could begained by mastering the necessary skills and knowledge. Ifthis was the case, we speculate that self-direction valuesmight also lead students to be more academically engaged,which in turn, results in better academic performance.

Future studies need to ascertain the potentially mediatingrole of academic engagement in linking self-directionvalues to academic achievement.

Implications for Asian andcross-cultural psychology

Achievement goal theory originated from studies withWestern students (Elliot, 1999, 2006). The applicability ofthe theory within Asian contexts has mainly been demon-strated with Chinese students in Hong Kong (e.g. Ng, 2006)and Singapore (e.g. Chang & Wong, 2008; Liem, Lau, &Nie, 2008), as well as Filipino students (e.g. Bernardo,2008). The participants involved in this study were drawnfrom Indonesia, a culture that represents a departure fromthe more typical student populations represented in theachievement goal literature. In this regard, our findingshave provided evidence for the relevance of achievementgoal constructs and the cross-cultural generalizability oftheir nomological relations with achievement motive andachievement to the Indonesian context. For example,consistent with studies using US (Elliot & Church, 1997)and Norwegian (Diseth & Kobbeltvedt, 2010) students,we also found that individual-oriented achievementmotive positively predicted mastery-approach andperformance-approach goals, and that mastery-avoidanceand performance-avoidance goals negatively predictedachievement.

With regard to the positive associations between social-oriented achievement motive and mastery-avoidance andperformance-avoidance goals, however, an intriguing ques-tion arising was: could they be replicated among Western orother groups of Asian students? As explicated earlier, thesefindings seemed to demonstrate that educational expecta-tions set by significant others are likely to give rise to apressure and fear of failure, which in turn, lead toavoidance-based achievement goals and lower achieve-ment. This psychological mechanism might be related tothe fact that our sample was drawn from a collectivistculture where the majority of individuals function interde-pendently, and conformity to social expectations is a norm.When students come from a culture where individualistvalues are the norms and independent self-construals char-acterizes its people, social expectations (and by implicationsocial-oriented achievement motive) might play a lessimportant role in the formation of achievement goals(Urdan, 2004). This prediction seems to receive indirectsupport from a study by Elliot, Chirkov, Kim, and Sheldon(2001), who demonstrated that avoidance goals were posi-tively associated with interdependent self-construals(linked to collectivist cultures), and negatively associatedwith independent self-construals (linked to individualistcultures). Taken together, this suggests that the meanings of



achievement goals and achievement should be viewed froma sociocultural lens relevant to the context where they arebeing studied.

Limitations and future directions

There are a number of potential limitations to considerwhen interpreting the findings which provide directions forfuture research. First, the sample size of the study wasrelatively small. Future studies need to draw a larger andmore representative sample to enhance external validity ofthe present findings. Second, our findings were based ondata coming from Indonesian students. While this can beseen as one of the study’s strengths, given the relativeunderrepresentation of the Indonesian student population inthe social and educational psychology literature, it is alsoimportant to assess the extent to which the interconstructrelationships found in this study can be replicated withstudents from other cultures. Juxtaposition of our findingswith data from Western and other Asian cultures, andexamination of the cross-cultural invariance of the paths inthe model, are needed to clarify the extent to which thehypothesized relationships hold true across diverse cul-tures. Third, our study was based on a cross-sectionaldesign and relied on self-report measures. Although this isa defensible and logical methodology in its own right,future studies should test the model longitudinally to see ifsubsequent hypothesized effects hold up after controllingfor shared variance of corresponding variables measuredearlier (i.e. auto-regression); complement self-report mea-sures with data derived from additional sources, such asparents, teachers, and peers; and use different methodologi-cal paradigms, such as structured interviews. Fourth, thestudy selected values and achievement motive orientationsas sociocultural antecedents of achievement goals. Future

studies should examine other socioculturally-rooted intra-psychological attributes that potentially relate to achieve-ment goals, such as the big-five personality traits that arerelatively universally structured, but appear to be cross-culturally different at the mean level (Church, 2009). Thesefuture recommendations are important in understandingsociocultural influences on achievement motivation andachievement.

End notes

1. A series of independent sample t-tests were conducted to assessif there were sex differences on the variables studied. Of the 18variables (10 values, two achievement motives, four achieve-ment goals, and two academic achievement), there were onlytwo significant sex effects: benevolence [t(354) = 2.72,p < 0.01, d = 0.30 (Mboy = 4.52, SD = 0.74; Mgirl = 4.74,SD = 0.72] and performance-approach goals [t(354) = 2.89,p < 0.01, d = 0.31 (Mboy = 5.03, SD = 1.45; Mgirl = 5.45,SD = 1.24]. In light of these relatively few and small sexeffects, we did not include sex in the path analytic model.

2. We also performed supplementary analyses in which Englishand mathematics achievement indicators were tested in twoseparate models. Specifically, the analysis with only Englishachievement as a dependent variable resulted in an excellent fit[c2 = (34, n = 356) = 73.23, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06], andso did the analysis with only mathematics achievement as adependent variable [c2 = (35, n = 356) = 72.96, CFI = 0.96,RMSEA = 0.05]. These analyses generated parameter esti-mates, significance levels, and suggested additional paths ineach model that did not lead to different substantive findingsfrom those in the analysis when the two achievement indicatorswere tested together in one model. Given this similarity and forparsimony purposes, the final empirical model presented wasbased on the analysis in which English and mathematicsachievement indicators were estimated in the one path analyticmodel.

References

Arbuckle, J. L. & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0User’s Guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2008). The individual andsocial dimensions of Filipino students’achievement goals. International Journal ofPsychology, 43, 886–891.

Bernardo, A. B. I. & Ismail, R. (2010). Socialperceptions of achieving students andachievement goals of students in Malaysiaand the Philippines. Social Psychology ofEducation, 13, 385–407.

Boekaerts, M., de Koning, E. & Vedder, P.(2006). Goal directed behavior and contex-tual factors in the classroom: An innovativeapproach to the study of multiple goals. Edu-cational Psychologist, 41, 33–51.

Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural EquationModeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts,Applications, and Programming, 2nd edn,New York: Routledge.

Chang, W. C. & Wong, K. (2008). Sociallyoriented achievement goals of Chinese uni-versity students in Singapore: Structure andrelationships with achievement motives,goals and affective outcomes. InternationalJournal of Psychology, 43, 880–885.

Church, A. T. (2009). Prospects for anintegrated trait and cultural psychology.European Journal of Personality, 23, 153–182.

Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., Fonseca, D. D. & Moller,A. C. (2006). The social–cognitive model ofachievement motivation and the 2 ¥ 2achievement goal framework. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 90,666–679.

Diseth, A. & Kobbeltvedt, T. (2010). A media-tion analysis of achievement motives, goals,learning strategies, and academic achieve-ment. British Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 80, 671–687.

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidancemotivation and achievement goals. Educa-tional Psychologist, 34, 169–189.

Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model ofapproach-avoidance motivation. Motivationand Emotion, 30, 111–116.

Elliot, A. J. & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierar-chal model of approach and avoidanceachievement motivation. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 72, 218–232.




Elliot, A. J. & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 ¥ 2achievement goal framework. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 30,957–971.

Elliot, A. J., Chirkov, V. I., Kim, Y. & Sheldon,K. M. (2001). A cross-cultural analysis ofavoidance (relative to approach) personalgoals. Psychological Science, 12, 505–510.

Gleason, M. E. J., Iida, M., Shrout, P. &Bolger, N. (2008). Receiving support as amixed blessing: Evidence for dual effects ofsupport on psychological outcomes. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 94,824–838.

Grant, H. & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifyingachievement goals and their impact. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 85,541–553.

Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity ofknowing, learning, and research. AmericanPsychologist, 53, 5–26.

Hickey, D. T. (1997). Motivation and contem-porary socio-constructivist instructional per-spectives. Educational Psychologist, 32,175–193.

Kitayama, S. (2002). Cultural and basic psy-chological processes – Toward a systemview of culture: Comment on Oysermanet al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128,189–196.

Lew, A. S., Allen, R., Papouchis, N. & Ritzler,B. (1998). Achievement orientation and fearof success in Asian American college stu-dents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54,97–108.

Lieber, E. & Yu, A. B. (2003). Individual dif-ferences and prototypical stories: Achieve-ment motivation in Taiwan and the UnitedStates. In: K. S. Yang, K. K. Hwang, P. B.Pederson & I. Daibo, eds. Progress in AsianSocial Psychology: Conceptual and Empiri-cal Contributions, pp. 135–154. Westport:Praeger.

Liem, A. D. (2006). The Influences of Socio-cultural and Educational Contexts onApproaches to Learning. Unpublished Doc-toral Dissertation. Singapore: National Uni-versity of Singapore.

Liem, A. D. & Nie, Y. (2008). Values, achieve-ment goals, and individually-oriented andsocial-oriented achievement motivationsamong Chinese and Indonesian secondaryschool students. International Journal ofPsychology, 43, 898–903.

Liem, A. D., Lau, S. & Nie, Y. (2008). The roleof self-efficacy, task value, and achievementgoals in predicting learning strategies, task

disengagement, peer relationship andEnglish achievement outcome. Contempo-rary Educational Psychology, 33, 486–512.

Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Nair, E.,Bernardo, A. B. I. & Prasetya, P. H. (2011).Content and structure of values in middleadolescence: Evidence from Singapore, thePhilippines, Indonesia, and Australia.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42,146–154.

Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Tyson, D. F. & Patall,E. A. (2008). When are achievement goalorientations beneficial for academic achieve-ment? A closer look at moderating factors.International Review of Social Psychology,21, 19–70.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human Motiva-tion. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

McDonald, R. P. & Marsh, H. W. (1990).Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentral-ity and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulle-tin, 107, 247–255.

McInerney, D. M., Walker, R. A. & Liem, G.A. D., eds. (2011). Sociocultural Theories ofLearning and Motivation: Looking Back,Looking Forward. Charlotte, NC: Informa-tion Age Publishing.

Maehr, M. L. (1974). Sociocultural origins ofachievement motivation. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations, 1,81–104.

Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Cultureand the self: Implications for cognition,emotion, and motivation. PsychologicalReview, 98, 224–253.

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T. & Wen, Z. (2004). Insearch of golden rules: Comment on hypoth-esis testing approaches to setting cut-offvalues for fit indexes and dangers in over-generalising Hu & Bentler’s (1999) findings.Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341.

Moller, A. C. & Elliot, A. J. (2006). The 2 ¥ 2achievement goal framework: An overviewof empirical research. In: A. V. Mitel, ed.Focus on Educational Psychology Research,pp. 307–326. New York: Nova SciencePublishers.

Ng, C. H. (2006). The role of achievementgoals in the completion of a course assign-ment: Examining the effects ofperformance-approach goals and combinedgoals. Open Learning, 21, 33–48.

Phillips, J. M. & Gully, S. M. (1997). Roleof goal orientation, ability, need forachievement, and locus of control in the

self-efficacy and goal-setting process.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 792–802.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiplepathways: The role of goal orientation inlearning and achievement. Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, 92, 544–555.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational scienceperspective on the role of student motiva-tion in learning and teaching contexts.Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,667–686.

Schwartz, S. H. (2005). Robustness and fruit-fulness of a theory of universals in indi-vidual human values. In: A. Tamayo & J. B.Porto, eds. Valores e comportamento nasorganizações [Values and Behavior in Orga-nizations], pp. 56–95. Petrópolis, Brazil:Vozes.

Segall, M. H., Lonner, W. J. & Berry, J. W.(1998). Cross-cultural psychology as ascholarly discipline. American Psychologist,53, 1101–1110.

Senko, C. & Miles, K. M. (2008). Pursuingtheir own learning agenda: How mastery-oriented students’ jeopardize their class per-formance. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 33, 561–583.

Sideridis, G. D. (2008). Feeling obliged to “dowell” or “not to fail”? The distinctionbetween approach and avoidance dimensi-nos of oughts. Learning and Individual Dif-ferences, 18, 176–186.

Spence, J. (1985). Achievement Americanstyle: The rewards and costs of individual-ism. American Psychologist, 40, 1285–1295.

Tao, V. & Hong, Y.-Y. (2000). A meaningsystem approach to Chinese students’achievement goals. Journal of Psychology inChinese Societies, 1, 13–38.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Col-lectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Urdan, T. (2004). Predictors of academic self-handicapping and achievement: Examiningachievement goals, classroom goal struc-tures, and culture. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 96, 251–264.

Urdan, T. & Mestas, M. (2006). Thegoals behind performance goals. Journalof Educational Psychology, 98, 354–365.

Van de Vijver, F. J. R. & Leung, K.(1997). Methods and Data Analysis forCross-Cultural Research. London: SagePublications.

Yu, A. B. & Yang, K. S. (1994). The nature ofachievement motivation in collectivist soci-



eties. In: U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C.Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi & G. Yoon, eds. Indi-vidualism and Collectivism: Theory,Methods, and Applications, pp. 239–250. London: Sage Publications.

Yuan, K. H. (2005). Fit indices versus test sta-tistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research,40, 115–148.

Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R. & Cortina, K. S.(2005). Motives, goals and adaptive

patterns of performance in Asian Americanand Anglo American students. Learningand Individual Differences, 15, 141–158.




sociocultural antecedents of academic motivation and achievement: role of values and achievement...

Documents