Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Amy Chua’s book entitled Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother has aroused a heated debate of parenting in the USA. In her book, Chua (2011) insisted that the strict Chinese model of parenting is the key to explain the academic excellence and superiority of Chinese children:

Chinese parents believe that their kids owe them everything… probably a combination of Confucian filial piety and the fact that parents have sacrificed and done so much for the children… Anyway, the understanding is that Chinese children must spend their lives repaying their parents by obeying them and making them proud… Chinese parents demand perfect grades because they believe that their child can get them. If their child doesn’t get them, the Chinese parent assumes it’s because the child didn’t work hard enough. That’s why the solution to substandard performance is always to excoriate, punish, and shame the child. The Chinese parent believes that their child will be strong enough to take the shaming and to improve from it. (pp. 59–60).

This parenting style is strikingly opposite to most classic achievement research which contends that individuals’ interest in learning is best sustained by their intrinsic motivation. Many motivational theorists have linked human motivation to the individual’s free choice and personal autonomy. That is, free choice leads to greater intrinsic (vs. extrinsic) motivation to fulfill one’s autonomy needs, and thus resulting in positive affect and performance outcomes. Conversely, when free choice is constrained, intrinsic motivation and interest would be undermined and dampened, thereby resulting in negative affect and performance outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Lepper, 1981; McClelland, 1985). Are such conventional notions of the beneficial personal choice, intrinsic motivation, and autonomy universally true for other non-Western cultures? As Iyengar and Lepper (1999) showed that while Anglo-American students who conceive themselves independent were more motivated by personal choices than task chosen by significant others, Asian American students who conceive themselves interdependent were more motivated by choices made by a significant others than by themselves. Why might the Asian American be more motivated by their mothers’ choice, an extrinsic factor presumably? Is it possible that Asian Americans, while construing the self as interdependent with significant others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), might view meeting expectations placed on them by significant others as a more valuable endeavor than achieving a personal goal. In this context, Hernandez and Iyengar (2001) argued that people striving for collective agency are motivated to purse goals and activities sanctioned by the collective so as to fulfill their duties and obligations. Driven by the collective agency for the collective wellness, achievement is regarded as a social-oriented goal and endeavor. In academic settings, collective agency can be reflected in terms of parental influence on students and their willingness to change according to parental concerns and preferences.

Chinese Achievement Patterns

With the high parental expectation on Chinese students’ achievement and their drive to fulfill such expectation as obligations, they are motivated to work harder to attain high performance outcomes. However, while Asian and Chinese students in general outperformed their American and non-Asian American counterpart, they reported lower perceived competence and higher dissatisfaction of results and higher test anxiety in academic settings (Eaton & Dembo, 1997; Harter, 1982; Lee, Uttal, & Chen, 1995; Oishi & Sullivan, 2005; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992; Whang & Hancock, 1994). Such achievement patterns among Asian and Chinese seems paradoxical and incomprehensible in the individualist paradigm. Tao and Hong (2000) suggested students in different sociocultural contexts of different societies may have entirely different achievement meaning systems. Academic achievement is seen as an individual endeavor for goals driven by own inspirations and interests in the Western culture, whereas it is seen as a social endeavor for fulfilling obligation by demonstrating new skills publicly for social approval in the Chinese culture. Tao and Hong (2000, 2014) highlight the deficiencies of the individual perspective in explaining different achievement pattern across various cultures and propose the social-oriented achievement motivation (SOAM) model which could better explain Asian Chinese achievement pattern: Why would Asian Chinese students on average show better academic performance than other ethnic groups, but report more negative emotions and test anxiety?

Tao and Hong (2014) argued such a seemingly paradoxical achievement pattern is rooted in the endorsement of SOAM in viewing academic achievement as an obligation to fulfill. They proposed the SOAM model in depicting how SOAM is linked to distinctive patterns of cognition (achievement goals adoptions), affect (agitated emotions facing setbacks and test anxiety), behaviors (learning approaches and strategies, time, and effort in studying) in academic achievement settings. Findings across five studies among junior high school and senior high school and college students have systematically demonstrated that have SOAM (after statistically controlling for the contributions of IOAM) is linked to a constellation of cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses. Specifically, when students’ values and beliefs are more influenced by their parents and are subjected to high parental expectations of academic achievement, they may value academic achievement as a way of satisfying those expectations. The pursuit of academic excellence then becomes a social and moral obligation. Consequently, these students often experience agitated emotions and test anxiety. To meet their parents’ expectations, they are concerned about documenting academic excellence and thus value performance demonstration goals and the achieving approach to learning. Such students are then motivated to spend more time on and exert more effort in studying for examinations, and obtain better grades. In the following, definitions of the S/IOAM, achievement goals, and the concerned academic-related outcome of the to-be-explained Chinese academic achievement patterns are stated and discussed below.

Academic Achievement Is Moral Obligation

According to Tao and Hong (2000, 2014), academic achievement is viewed as a morally obligatory endeavor among Chinese students to repay parents’ effort in raising them. Firstly, filial piety and achievement in education were most valued as attributes of an ideal child among Hong Kong Chinese parents (Shek & Chan, 1999). These parents see academic achievement as getting high grades, being diligent and responsible in studying, and attainting high education level. Doing well in school is regarded as the primary obligation to fulfill expectation set by parents. Filial piety acts also as a highly valued virtuous and moral characteristic which is associated with academic achievement (Salili, 1994, 1995; Yu, 1974). How well students can meet these obligations is important in the children development (Stevenson & Stigler, 1992). Differing from the rights-based moral judgment on whether individual will do harms to others intentionally in Western culture, people rather tend to make moral judgment in terms of how well individuals fulfill the parental expectations or social obligations (duty-based moral judgment) in Chinese culture (Chiu, Dweck, Tong, & Fu, 1997). Secondly, according to Confucian teaching, studying hard with persistent effort is seen as an esteemed way meant to cultivate moral characters (Mizokawa & Ryckman, 1990). Similar to the incremental view of intelligence conceptually (Dweck 2000), all domains of oneself are malleable including ability (Chao, 1996; Chen & Uttal, 1988) in Confucian teaching. As such, discipline and persistence in students’ study is valued highly (Bempechat & Drago-Severson, 1999). Chinese teachers and students adopt the view that ability can be acquired by spending more time and effort in study, lower achievers are blamed to not working hard enough and not responsible (Stevenson et al., 1990) Ineptitude has to be compensated by hard working attitude and action such as doing more assignments and taking extra classes (Hong, 2001).

Thirdly, according to attribution theory, achievement implies moral judgment when achievement outcomes are attributed to internal and controllable factors such as time and effort spent on study (Hamilton, Blumenfeld, Akoh, & Miura, 1990; Weiner, 1993, 1994). One’s central will plays an essential role in morality, for instance working hard for examinations may show one’s will is morally correct and appropriately oriented (Sabini & Monterosso, 2003). Particularly, failing in task is seen as immoral when failure is attributed to lack of effort which is subject to one’s volitional adjustment. Also, one is considered as immoral as not being responsible enough to exert sufficient effort in tasks.

SOAM Versus IOAM

Yang and Yu (Yang, 1982; Yang & Yu, 1988; Yu, 1996; Yu & Yang, 1987, 1994) were pioneers in distinguishing the conceptions of Social-Oriented Achievement Motivation (SOAM) from Individual-Oriented Achievement Motivation (IOAM). They argued the rising need to distinguish these two distinct achievement orientations at an individual level that are reminiscent of the cultural differences between the West and the East. Accordingly, SOAM is defined as a motivational system to achieve honoring one’s family and earn social approval with the following five characteristics: (a) significant others, social groups, or the society set the pursuit achievement goals and standards of excellence; (b) actions or means for pursuing goals and attaining standards are selected and determined by significant others, the group, or society; (c) performance and outcomes are evaluated by significant others, the group, or society in terms of whether they match the goals and standards set by significant others, the group, or society; (d) reinforcement is given by significant others, the group, or society in terms of praise or condemnation, acceptance or rejection, promotion or demotion; (e) its motivational dynamics reflects strong social instrumentality and weak functional autonomy. On the contrary, IOAM is defined as a motivational system to achieve one’s own aspirations with the following five distinct primary characteristics: (a) pursuit of achievement goals or standards of excellence are set by individuals; (b) actions and means of pursuing goals and attaining standards of excellence are selected and determined by individuals; (c) outcome evaluations are made in terms of whether they match the goals and standards set by individuals; (d) reinforcement is given by individuals based on the outcome evaluations done by individuals; (e) its motivational dynamics reflects strong self-instrumentality.

Tao and Hong (2000, 2014) employed an intracultural analysis to demonstrate different cultural meanings ascribed in East and West in relation to achievement can be unpacked and explained in terms of endorsement of SOAM and IOAM. They argued that focusing on one culture at a time on SOAM and its ramifications as SOAM is a system that is less explored in the past in comparison to IOAM. Like any cultural variables, there are individual differences in the endorsements of SOAM and IOAM within a culture. Cross-cultural difference may instead arise from the relative accessibilities of the SOAM or IOAM individuals in a culture based on the dynamic constructivist approach (Hong, 2009; Hong & Chiu, 2001; Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martinez, 2000).

SOAM and Parental Influences

Liem and Nie (2008) examined the ten basic values across cultures in predicting achievement motivation orientations. Among all, only conformity which is defined as restraints of action and inclinations to upset or harm others and transgresses social expectation or norms was found positively associated with SOAM among both Chinese and Indonesians. However, self-direction value such as independent thought and actions was found negatively associated with SOAM. Although some recent research has started to explore the constructive effects of parental involvements in Western culture, research findings largely confirmed the cultural ideal that supportive autonomy (i.e., parents providing support and guidance for the students to make their own choices) is most beneficial (Pomerantz & Wang, 2009). Bernardo (2012) argued that detrimental impact of parental control is only restricted to when parental control is perceived to be illegitimate, whereas perceived legitimacy of parental control in academic participation was positively associated academic adjustment and less self-reported disruptive behavior. Moreover, perceived legitimacy of parental control on subject choice was found negatively with IOAM and positively with SOAM. Tao and Hong (2014) found that SOAM was positively associated with parental influences on students. They argued that the essence of SOAM is rooted in parental influence on students. The more students are influenced by parents, the more they would wish to satisfy the goals and standards of excellence set by their parents, and the more they would feel obliged to fulfill their perceived social and filial obligations towards them through academic achievement.

SOAM and Achievement Goals

Zusho and Clayton (2011) reviewed the absolutist, relativist, and universalist approaches in studying achievement goals. They suggested that departing from the absolutist approach which relies only on mainstream assessments developed in the West with Western samples, researchers are advised to adopt the universalist approach by acknowledging the cultural impact and contextual influences on motivation with certain basic motivational processes. Relativists adopting the concept of SOAM and measuring this orientation with the local instrument developed with Chinese samples and validated with Asian samples including Hong Kong Chinese (Tao & Hong, 2000, 2014), mainland Chinese and Indonesians (Liem, Martin, Porter & Colmar, 2012; Liem & Nie, 2008; Nie & Liem, 2013), Filipino (Bernardo, 2010) and Singaporean (Chang & Wong, 2008; Chang, Wong & Teo, 2000; Chang, Wong, Teo, & Fam, 1997). Motivational processes are better comprehended under the contextual bases of motivation. Indigenous psychological studies are not necessarily relativism but strike to be in line with universalism. Motivational science studies should be directed towards universalism from relativism in advance motivational science in general and achievement goals in particular (Zusho & Clayton, 2011). Many studies borrowed the conceptions of SOAM and IOAM in studying motivational processes and achievement goals in particular (i.e., Liem, Martin, Porter, & Colmar, 2012; Nie & Liem, 2013; Tao & Hong, 2000, 2014). Findings of these studies consistently showed significant positive correlations between SOAM and IOAM among Chinese and Filipino students (Bernardo, 2010; Nie & Liem, 2013; Tao & Hong, 2000, 2014). This series of studies launch a good start in directing relativism to universalism approach by attempting to map indigenous study of SOAM with a mainstream theory of achievement goals. SOAM perspective provides a theoretical framework to advance motivational science research in different cultures (Chang & Wong, 2008; Liem et al., 2012; Liem & Nie, 2008; Nie & Liem, 2013; Tao & Hong, 2000, 2014).

Achievement goals theory has been the focus of the study of motivational process. Three independent goals posited are learning, performance demonstration, and performance avoidance goals based on trichotomous framework of achievement goal theory (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). Learning goal emphasizes the development of competence and the attainment of task mastery, performance demonstration goal emphasizes the display of high performance and the attainment of competence relative to others, and the performance-avoidance goal emphasizes the avoidance of looking stupid and incompetent relative to others. Both learning and performance demonstration goals are viewed as approach-oriented because they involve regulation in relation to potential positive outcomes. However, performance avoidance goals are viewed as avoidance-oriented because they involve regulation in relation to potential negative outcomes. In other words, learning goal is adopted by people who define competence using an absolute (or intrapersonal) standard, and aim to achieve success. The performance approach goal (e.g., performance demonstration goals) is the goal adopted by people who define competence using a normative standard, and aim to achieve success. The performance avoidance goal is the goal adopted by people who define competence using a normative standard, and aim to avoid failure. As endorsing SOAM motivates students to gain social approval from significant others, thus students may endorse goals aiming to demonstrate one can excel in academic performance and avoid failure in it. Findings across various studies displayed that SOAM promotes performance demonstration (approach) and avoidance goals, whereas IOAM promotes learning goals (mastery goals) only (Tao & Hong, 2000, 2014).

SOAM and Agitated Emotions

According to the self-discrepancy theory by Higgins (1997), a mismatch between one’s actual self (i.e., characteristics of the self in reality) and ought self (i.e., characteristics of the self that significant others think one should attain) may produce agitated emotions, including anxiety, shame, and guilt. In line with the argument, when academic achievement is seen as a moral obligation, failing in achievement tasks and not living up the achievement standards set by significant others should evoke obligatory related outcomes. Students endorsing SOAM experience actual-ought self-discrepancy encountering academic setbacks and thus experience agitation emotions and high test anxiety in general. To avoid feeling agitated, students in high SOAM are more motivated to spend greater effort resulting in better examination performance. SOAM was found positively associated with agitated emotions and test anxiety after perceiving failure in a task but not non-agitation emotions (Tao & Hong, 2014).

SOAM and Learning Approaches

Three types of learning approaches are defined by Biggs (1992) concerning how students typically manage academic related tasks. Each approach is a combined motive and strategy adopted by students to learn. (a) deep approach – motive and strategy for satisfying intellectual inquiry by maximizing the integration and understanding of knowledge through wide reading, discussion, and reflection on subjects; (b) achieving approach – motive and strategy for doing well and competing for higher grades in examinations by optimizing the organization of time and effort in preparing for examinations; and (c) surface approach – motive and strategy for avoiding failure without working too hard by focusing on selected details and reproducing correctly. Tao and Hong (2014) showed that SOAM endorsement is positively associated with the adoption of the surface and achieving approaches to learning. By contrast, IOAM endorsement is positively associated with the adoption of deep approach to learning.

SOAM, Effort Expenditure, and Examination Performance

Despite the fact that SOAM is found associated with feeling of failure in tasks in face of setbacks (Tao & Hong, 2014), failure in Asian cultures can be motivating with self-improving orientation accompanied with persistence as depicted in Heine and his colleagues’ study (Heine et al., 2001). In their study, Japanese who experienced failure tended to persevere longer with corrective effort than those who succeeded. More generally, Asian-American students were found to attribute positive and negative achievement outcomes more to effort invested than was the case with Euro-American students (Mizokawa & Ryckman, 1990). Thus, SOAM may lead to high effort expenditure in various academic settings.

Performance demonstration goals are repeatedly found associated with actual examination performance, but are unrelated to interest in class (e.g., Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, & Elliot, 2002). By contrast, learning goals are positively related to interest in class, but are unrelated to students’ actual performance in examinations. To the extent that SOAM is positively linked to endorsement of performance demonstration goals, SOAM endorsement exerts an indirect effect on actual examination performance in school. Specifically, SOAM endorsement fosters a motive to show high performance in examinations, and therefore motivate students to spend time and effort in studying, which in turn lead to better actual academic performance (Tao & Hong, 2014).

Generally, SOAM and IOAM displayed two distinctive constellations of achievement patterns as observed in Asian Chinese and Western cultures (Tao & Hong, 2014). In general, SOAM is associated with performance (demonstration and avoidance goals), agitated emotions, test anxiety, achieving and surface approaches, effort in studying, and actual examination performance. IOAM is associated with learning goals and deep approaches. These two differential achievement patterns obtained in the studies closely correspond to achievement patterns already identified among Chinese and American students. To study motivational processes by including SOAM in addition to IOAM can better understand and explain Chinese academic achievement patterns.

SOAM, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Parental Influences

Are the three fundamental human needs namely autonomy (to feel one’s activities are self-selected and self-endorsed), competence (to feel effective in these activities), and relatedness (to feel a sense of closeness with others) based on the self-determination theory of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000) universally true across cultures? Is autonomy a universal need across cultures? When students value expectation of significant others and desire to fulfill them as obligation, endorsing SOAM can be a personal choice as reflected in variations in SOAM endorsement among students. When East Asians with the interdependent self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) value relatedness and interdependence, they grant influences of significant others on themselves so as to be more influenced by parents (Tao & Hong, 2014). For Asians, the self is defined by one’s social roles and obligations, internalizing expectations of significant others fulfill the basic need to be socio-emotionally close and related to significant others. As such, expectations and wishes of significant others may not be viewed as incompatible with individuals’ one. As shown by Bao and Lam (2008), Hong Kong Chinese students who were social-emotionally close to their mothers were found similarly motivated to perform on task which was either chosen by themselves or by their mothers. However, for those who are not socio-emotionally close to their mothers, they are less motivated by their mother choice than their own choice. It further suggested that personal autonomy is not valued as much as relatedness among Chinese students. In other words, individuals can exercise their autonomy via relating to their significant other by granting the influences of significant others on them. In line with the argument by Bernardo (2010), when students perceive parental control as legitimate, it leads to positive adjustment and outcomes. Moreover, he found that perceived legitimacy of parental control on subject choice was positive with SOAM but negative with IOAM. Therefore, endorsing SOAM implies one to perceive parental influences or control as legitimate and grant the parents the rights to direct their goals and to invoke personal agency to meet the expectations. Parental control in Asian cultural norms reflects love. The primary parental duty is to “guan” (closely monitor and govern) children (Chao, 1994). From children perspective, they feel obliged to obey parents’ wishes under the social norms of filial piety (Yeh & Bedford, 2003). Arguably, children from an Asian culture valuing relatedness would resist less to the parental control and sanction their parent the rights to influence them, which is manifested in SOAM endorsement.

Is SOAM an Extrinsic Motivation?

As Tao and Hong (2014) discussed, SOAM may seem instrumental and maladaptive in learning as it is associated with negative emotions (i.e., guilt, shame, anxiety and test anxiety) in academic settings. However, given the positive correlation between SOAM and IOAM across various studies among Chinese students, extrinsic motivation like SOAM can somehow coexist with IOAM, the intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations systems are believed to be incompatible with one another in the Western culture. In Asian culture, Chinese and East Asian students can endorse both SOAM and IOAM with extrinsic and intrinsic goals, respectively, to meet parental expectation and obligation by attaining good academic results with performance approach goals and acquiring new skills with leaning goals at the same time. Consistently, Lepper and Henderlong (2000) found a positive correlation between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations among Asian American students, but a negative one among their Caucasian counterparts. They raised the need to study motivational system without being confined with traditional focus on “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” motivations. Extrinsic motivation can simultaneously initiate intrinsic motivation by motivating one in engagement of interest-enhancing activities (Sansone & Smith, 2000). External goals imposed on students by parents can be incorporated into students’ own internal goals through the process of internalization (Hamilton et al., 1990; Hui, Sun, Chow, & Chu, 2011; Lepper, 1983). This argument is further evidenced by findings (Tao & Hong, 2014) which showed that parental expectations can be internalized into students’ own intrinsic motivation, as manifested in displaying that SOAM exerts indirect effect on learning goals and deep approach to learning with IOAM acting as the partial mediator. Importantly, SOAM still exerts significant direct effect on learning goals, fostering intrinsic learning even after statistically controlling for IOAM.

In sum, SOAM does not necessarily undermine one’s intrinsic motivation but can lead to high intrinsic motivation in terms of IOAM endorsement. Endorsing both high SOAM and high IOAM can be optimally motivating in terms of endorsing multiple approach goals (performance and learning approach goals) and approaches to learnings (i.e., achieving and deep approaches), thus resulting in higher effort expenditure and better examination performance at the cost of higher test anxiety and agitated emotions in face of setbacks.

Future Directions

SOAM research is so far limited to Chinese and East Asian samples. In-depth understanding of the role of SOAM as the key cultural ingredient requires systematic investigation across multiple studies and different cultures. As SOAM has been studied only with Chinese and East Asian students, future research can focus on testing whether similar patterns can be replicated in the West (Tao & Hong, 2014). Presumably, Westerners who endorse SOAM should have showed similar pattern of cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses as do East Asian students. However, given the cultural differences such as the self-construal (independent self vs. interdependent), would SOAM and IOAM still be closely correlated and can coexist in the Western culture? Future studies can adopt the experimental design in examining the priming effect of SOAM (vs. IOAM) on subsequent academic-related outcomes, for instance perceving setbacks as failure and feeling of agitation based on the dynamic constructivist approach (Hong, Chiu, & Kung, 1997; Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martinez, 2000). In other words, people who acquire shared knowledge of two culturally different achievement orientations (i.e., S/IOAM) can be activated temporarily to use one of these two orientation tool kits resulting in different academic experiences.

The relationship of SOAM with performance demonstration and avoidance goals can be further differentiated by identifying the mediating or moderating factors such as supporting versus controlling parenting involvement (Nie & Liem, 2013), self-efficacy, and academic competence. Aside from this mainstream achievement goals theory (mastery vs. performance and approach vs. avoidance), the interplay of SOAM and different specific types of social goals, namely social affiliation, approval, concern, responsibility, and status (King, McInerney, & Watkins, 2012) in relating different achievement outcomes in the classroom settings can be the focus of future research.

The effect of age on SOAM and IOAM stems can be further investigated. As findings in Tao and Hong study (2014) showed, endorsing SOAM was positively linked to adopting learning goals and deep learning approaches which is presumably linked with IOAM among high student schools, suggesting that students may have internalized learning from parents’ expectations. However, when participants were college students, such positive links between SOAM and learning goals and deep learning approaches disappeared. These findings may suggest internalization of SOAM into IOAM – related outcomes no longer exist in emerging adulthood.

To conclude, SOAM sheds lights on unpacking the paradoxical phenomenon observed among East Asian students on achievement and broadening the understanding of issues of basic human motivation (need for relatedness and autonomy) and learning motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic) in a substantial way.