Achievement Motivation and Academic Performance ...

Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 2001, 127(4), 378–408

Achievement Motivation and Academic Performance Among Turkish Early and Young Adolescents in the Netherlands MAYKEL VERKUYTEN JOCHEM THIJS KADIR CANATAN Utrecht University, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT. The authors conducted 3 studies in which Turkish and other adolescents in the Netherlands completed questionnaires that addressed the importance of collectivist cultural values for achievement motivation and educational outcomes. Compared with other minority group students and Dutch students, the Turkish students had stronger family-oriented achievement motivation. In addition, only among the Turks was ethnic identification positively related to family motivation. Furthermore, there were no differences in individual achievement motivation between the Turks and Dutch, and only among the former group was a combination of family motivation and individual motivation found. Also, for the Turks, family motivation was positively related to task-goal orientation, which mediated the relationship between family motivation and academic performance. Individual motivation was an independent predictor of performance. For the other ethnic minority groups and the Dutch, family motivation was not related to task-goal orientation and performance. In addition, for these groups, task-goal orientation mediated the relationship between individual achievement motivation and performance. Key words: achievement motivation, minorities, performance

Whether or not I work hard at school is my own business. Learning is something you do for yourself, and only you decide what you want to do. It’s nobody else’s business. Yeah, well that way my parents and relatives will at least know I learned something at school and that I didn’t go there for nothing. But if I fail my exams they tell me, “You didn’t try hard enough and we paid everything for you and we’ve always taken care of you and we raised you. What a way to thank us.” But if I work really hard for my parents and also for me, really, then they’ll tell me, “Yeah, you did what we wanted.” Address correspondence to Maykel Verkuyten, Department of Social Sciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands; [email protected] (e-mail). 378

Verkuyten, Thijs, & Canatan 379

THESE TWO QUOTES are taken from two interviews about education and academic performance with 14-year-old students attending the same Dutch school. The interviews were part of our project on cultural orientation and academic achievement. They illustrate the phenomenon we address in the present study, namely that culture has a varying effect on achievement motivation and educational outcomes. In the first extract, a Dutch girl argues that academic achievement is her personal affair and responsibility. The second statement was made by a Turkish girl when she was asked whether she finds academic achievement important. She argues that her motivation to achieve is strongly determined by feelings of loyalty and obligation toward her parents and family. In psychology, many researchers focus on the relationship between motivation and achievement. Earlier studies followed the work of Murray (1938) and McClelland (1961) in focusing on needs, such as the need for achievement and the need for affiliation. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a number of social– cognitive theories of motivation were developed. These theories examined students’ beliefs about, for example, attributions and abilities, such as self-efficacy and competence. There are also many studies on achievement goals. Achievement goal theories examine perceptions and beliefs about the purpose of academic performance (Ames, 1984; Dweck, 1991; Nicholls, 1984; Urdan & Maehr, 1995). Their focus is on the importance of task (or mastery) goals, ability (or ego) goals, and to a lesser extent, social goals. The study of social–cognitive motivation is also thought to be a promising perspective for researchers trying to explain poor achievement among ethnic minority youth (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1992; Osborne, 1997). These explanations tend to focus on low expectations, perceived incompetence, feelings of external control, and lack of identification with academic achievement. However, the empirical results regarding the relationship between achievement and these self-beliefs are far from conclusive (for a review, see Graham, 1994). Another explanation for the poor academic achievement of minority group students stresses cultural characteristics and the cultural discrepancy that these children meet with at school. Instructions and task characteristics used in school may differ from the cultural values taught at home. The emphasis that Western schools place on individual success, personal responsibility, and self-actualization may not match the cultural values that ethnic minority children learn through early socialization in the family. As the second quote suggests, for these children, achievement may have a more collective or family-oriented meaning. In three studies among Turkish early (10- to 13-year-old) and young (13- to 16-year-old) adolescents living in the Netherlands, we examined cultural values, task-goal orientation, and academic performance together with perceived academic competence and ethnic identity. In these studies, ethnic Dutch students were also involved, and, in Study 3, a more ethnically diverse sample was included. We first discuss the theoretical notions already mentioned along with possible cultural differences.

380

Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs

Motives, Values, and Culture Achievement motivation has been extensively studied in cross-cultural research. Ordinarily, the focus has been on differences in the level of achievement motivation and not so much on the content and meaning of this motive. Following the work of McClelland (1961, 1965), most researchers defined achievement in terms of competition and individual success. Personal desires, independent decisions, personal accomplishments, and self-actualization were stressed. The motive to achieve was thought to reflect a motive to achieve for the “self,” and, as such, achievement was defined as individual accomplishment for one’s own sake. This individual type of achievement motivation can be distinguished from a group-oriented or collectivist type of achievement motivation (Duda & Allison, 1989; Maehr & Nicholls, 1980; Yu & Yang, 1994). In group-oriented or collectivist cultures, being loyal to the group and fulfilling the expectations of significant others are central. In the child’s case, the group is predominantly the family, giving achievement and success a family-related meaning. In the present article, we use the terms individual (oriented) motivation for the first type of achievement motivation and family (oriented) motivation for the second type. A number of empirical studies have focused on achievement motivation, in particular among East Asian groups. For example, Philippine students have been shown to value social approval and group status in achievement more than U.S. students, who tend to emphasize individual success and competition (Church & Katigbak, 1992). In his review, Bond (1986) summarized several studies on the motivational patterns of the Chinese. He concluded that the Chinese show relatively high levels of collectivist achievement. In their review, Yu and Yang (1994) also came to this conclusion; they showed empirically that individual-oriented motivation and collectivist-oriented achievement motivation are two different and independent psychological constructs. Studies with groups beyond East Asia point in the same direction. For example, Ramirez and Price-Williams (1976) found that White children in the United States focus on individual accomplishment and satisfaction, whereas African American and Mexican American children score higher on family-oriented achievements. Furthermore, Niles (1998) found that achievement among Sri Lankans is related to duties toward family and social responsibility, whereas Australians focus more on personal goals. McInerney, Hinkley, Dowson, and Van Etten (1998) examined different goal orientations among Aboriginal Australian, Anglo-Australian, and immigrant Australian children. All the students emphasized a task (or mastery) orientation to academic success. In addition, the Aboriginal students were somewhat more influenced by social goals related to peers and friends, but these goals were not associated with achievement outcomes. That study, however, did not examine the role of the family. In studies more closely related to the present one, Phalet and Claes (1993) and Phalet and Lens (1995) investigated achievement motivation and family ori-


entation among Turkish and Flemish adolescents living in Belgium. They found that Turkish and Flemish adolescents were equally motivated to achieve academically. The Turkish adolescents indicated that achievement was important for them individually, but in addition, Turkish achievement motivation was accompanied by group loyalty beliefs: “Achievement motive appears to be tied up with filial loyalty and with the prospect to gratify one’s family for their sacrifices and to live up to their pride by being successful and responsible” (Phalet & Claes, 1993, p. 339). Phalet and Claes (1993) also noted that it is possible to have a combination of individual and collective motivation. Most immigrant groups in Western societies are concerned with preserving their culture. However, they also strive for integration, and they come into contact with Western achievement values that induce the development of individual motivation. Hence, many minority parents encourage their children to seek individual and group achievement simultaneously. From a collectivist perspective, the expectations of significant group members are not seen to be in conflict with one’s own desires and choices. Several value surveys have shown that collectivism is a leading modern Turkish value (Hofstede, 1991; Schwartz, 1992) and is also predominant among Turkish immigrants and their children living in the Netherlands (Huiberts, Vollebergh, & Meeus, 1999; Verkuyten, 2001; Verkuyten, Hagendoorn, & Masson, 1996). Therefore, in the present study, we expected Turkish adolescents to have a higher level of family-oriented motivation than Dutch adolescents but not necessarily a lower level of individual-oriented motivation. In addition, we expected both orientations to be more strongly related among the Turks than among the Dutch. To examine the importance of these motivations, we focused on task-goal orientation and its relation to academic performance. We had two reasons for doing this. First, in collectivist cultures the emphasis is on the group, and the definition of self typically includes family members. The fact that relatively little distinction is made between the self and family may imply that feelings of loyalty and obligation toward parents are more akin to task goals—for which developing competence and mastery is central—than to ability goals, for which demonstrating individual performance relative to others is more central. Second, in explaining educational outcomes, task goals seem more important than ability goals. In general, a task-goal orientation is positively related to motivation and performance, whereas an ability orientation is related to a negative pattern of learning outcomes (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Task goals have also been found to be strongly related to achievement outcomes among different cultural groups, suggesting that an emphasis on mastery is appropriate in different cultural settings (McInerney et al., 1998; Phalet & Lens, 1995). Hence, we expected that Dutch and Turkish adolescents would not differ in task goals. Similarity in the importance of task-goal orientation across cultural groups, however, does not imply that the perceived reasons for such an orienta-

382


tion are similar. Feelings of personal responsibility and self-determination are more central to individualistic cultures, whereas feelings of loyalty and obligation predominate in collectivist cultures. Only for the Turkish adolescents did we expect task goals to be related to family-oriented achievement motivation. In studying the relationship between values, task goals, and academic performance, we also included a measure of perceived ability to determine students’ sense of academic competence and a measure of ethnic identification to determine the commitment to their group. The first measure was included as a control for perceived competence. High perceived competence is often seen as a desirable educational outcome and a major index of adjustment (Graham, 1994). In addition, task-oriented motivation for academic success is demonstrated by a sense of competence. Hence, evidence that task-goal orientation is related to cultural values and academic performance is more convincing when perceived competence is taken into account. Moreover, perceived competence may play a different role in motivation and academic performance among majority and minority group students. Studies in various Western countries, including the Netherlands, have found that ethnic minorities have equal or greater self-esteem and perceived academic competence than majority group members, yet their school results compare badly (for reviews, see Porter & Washington, 1979, 1993; Verkuyten, 1994). The dimension of collectivism–individualism is not without controversy (Kagitcibasi, 1994), but in general it refers to the relationship between groups and individuals. On the individual level, it is assumed that there are people with both a more collectivist and an individualist orientation in all cultures (Triandis et al., 1985). Collectivism has many defining attributes but central to it is that the self is defined by the in-group (Markus, Kitayama, & Heiman, 1996; Triandis, 1989). This group can have a stronger or weaker self-defining and emotional meaning. Hence, the level of group identification is an important individual variable that may be related to individual differences in values and motivational orientations. For example, in the Netherlands, Verkuyten (2001) found that collectivist values define what it means to be Turkish, whereas individualist values are more self-defining for the Dutch. Thus, it can be expected that beliefs about family loyalty and obligation are more strongly endorsed and more relevant for academic motivation and performance among Turkish children than among Dutch children. In addition, Turks with a strong ethnic identification are more in-group oriented than are Turks with weaker ethnic identification. Thus, Turks with a strong ethnic identification can be expected to adhere more strongly to collectivist values and motives than Turks with weaker ethnic identification. In contrast, among the Dutch, ethnic identification may be related only to individualist values. To summarize, we examined the following expectations, derived from this discussion: First, we expected that Turkish students would endorse familyoriented motivation more strongly than Dutch students; for individual-oriented


motivation, we expected little or no ethnic differences. Second, we expected that individual-oriented and family-oriented motivation would be more strongly related among the Turks than among the Dutch. Third, we expected that the endorsement of family-oriented motivation would be stronger among those Turks with a strong ethnic identification. Fourth, among the Dutch, ethnic identification would be positively related to individual-oriented motivation. Fifth, only among the Turks did we expect that family-oriented motivation would be related to taskgoal orientation and academic performance. Sixth, among both the Turks and the Dutch we expected that individual-oriented motivation would be related to taskgoal orientation and performance. Finally, we examined possible ethnic differences in perceived academic competence and their relationship to task-goal orientation and performance. The six predictions were tested in three studies of early and young Turkish adolescents. Studies in the Netherlands indicate that ethnic minority students consistently do poorly in school. Together with Moroccans, on average, Turks have the poorest academic results, irrespective of how academic performance is defined (Martens & Verweij, 1997; Tesser, Van Dugteren, & Merens, 1996). When social and economic factors are taken into account, however, these differences are much smaller and, according to some, even nonexistent (Driessen, 1990; Van ‘t Hof & Dronkers, 1993). As in other countries, there is an ongoing debate in the Netherlands about the relative importance that ethnicity and social class play in educational outcomes. STUDY 1 Method Participants The participants were 762 students between 10 and 13 years of age. There were 607 self-defined ethnic Dutch participants, and 155 self-defined ethnic Turkish participants. Girls made up fifty percent of both groups. The study was carried out in 51 classes in 26 primary schools in different cities. The students completed the questionnaires anonymously. All of the students participated willingly. No information had been collected on parents’ occupations or social status. In the Netherlands, the majority of Turks have a low social-economic position and many Dutch adolescents attending schools with a high number of ethnic minority students are also from a relatively low socioeconomic background. Most of the Turkish students in this study were second-generation immigrants who were born in the Netherlands or came to live in the country before the age of 4 years. A recent national survey showed that only 3% of Turkish young adolescents came to live in the Netherlands at a later age (Tesser, Merens, & Van Praag, 1999).

384


Measures In previous studies, we interviewed students and found that individualoriented and family-oriented achievement motivation could be summarized in the answers to two main items: “I work hard in school because I personally want to do so,” and “I work hard in school because my parents want me to do so.” We asked the students to rate these items on a 5-point scale ranging from agree to disagree. Task-goal orientation was measured with six items rated on a 5-point scale. Four sample items were “I like learning new things at school,” “I do not like having to work during lessons” (reverse-coded), “I always pay close attention during lessons,” and “I like continuing with my work when the teacher leaves the classroom briefly.” Reliability analysis for these 6 items was similar for both groups (for the Turkish students, α = .72; for the Dutch students, α = .73). To assess academic performance, we collected information on self-reported performance (“In general, I get high marks in school”). In addition, we used the perceived relative academic position within the classroom (Willig Scale; Burns, 1979). Typically, Dutch studies in the area of academic performance have used large samples obtained by gathering data from different classrooms and schools. In the subsequent analysis, the data are pooled by using standard measures of academic performance. In doing so, the researcher ignores the relative academic standing in each class. However, two children from different classes with equal levels of absolute achievement may differ in the relative achievement position they have in their class. Following social comparison theory, Rogers, Smith, and Coleman (1978) argued and demonstrated that the child develops feelings of competence and ability predominantly in relation to the classroom of which he or she is part. Verkuyten and De Jong (1987) found the same result for Turkish and Dutch students in the Netherlands. Grades and other normative assessments are probably more important for ability beliefs and motivations than are scores on standard academic achievement tests. Therefore, we used the Willig Scale, a self-anchoring, 10-step rating scale. The top of the scale marks the best performing student in one’s class, and the lowest step marks the worst student. Participants were asked to use that scale to rate their general performance, their achievement in learning the Dutch language, and their achievement in learning mathematics. These three ratings, together with the self-reported performance rating, formed a reliable scale. Cronbach’s alpha was .86 for both the Turkish and the Dutch sample. Perceived academic competence was measured with four items from the Scholastic Competence subscale of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children developed by Harter (1982). To maintain consistency with the other measures, we used a 5-point scale ranging from agree to disagree, and the items were adapted to this format. Two sample items were “I sometimes have trouble figuring out the answers in school” (reverse-coded) and “I easily remember the things


I learn in school.” Reliability analysis yielded an alpha equal to .64 (for the Turks, α = .68; for the Dutch, α = .63). Ethnic identification is a multifaceted concept including aspects such as selfdefinition, ethnic group evaluation, and attachment (Jackson & Smith, 1999; Kinket & Verkuyten, 1997; Phinney, 1990). In the present study, we focused on the evaluation of ethnic group membership. We used the Private–Collective SelfEsteem Scale developed by Luhtanen and Crocker (1992). This 5-point scale contains four items that assess participants’ evaluation of their own ethnic group. Two sample items are “I feel good about being Turkish [Dutch]” and “I often regret that I am Turkish [Dutch]” (reverse-coded). Cronbach’s alpha was .77 (Turks, α = .77; Dutch, α = .70). Analysis The data were collected in 51 school classes. The class may affect motivation and performance, however (Ames, 1992; Meece, 1991). Moreover, school classes are rarely formed randomly, and individuals who belong to the same group will share at least some experiences. Therefore, assumptions of independence of observations are often violated (Kenny & Judd, 1984), which makes multiple regression analysis, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and some other standard statistical methods inappropriate techniques for analyzing the data. By using multilevel analysis, we examined whether motivations, task goals, and perceived competence are explained by differences between classes. Multilevel analysis allows the simultaneous modeling of individual level and group level variables by decomposing the variance of the dependent variable into within-group or individual level variance and between-groups or class level variance (Kenny, 1996). We used MLwiN (Rasbash, Healy, Brown, & Cameron, 1998) to conduct multilevel regression analyses. In doing so, we examined an “intercept-only model” in which we fitted a random intercept and no explanatory variables. This model partitions the total variance in a within-class and a between-classes variance. This enabled us to determine differences between students as well as between school classes. This analysis is very similar to a one-way ANOVA with random effects, in which group is the independent variable (Bryk & Raudenbusch, 1992). If the between-classes variance proved to be significant and substantial in terms of explained variance, we expected to continue with multilevel analysis. If not, we expected to continue with standard least squares regression analysis to explain task orientation and academic performance. In addition, we performed ANOVAs and t tests to examine differences between and within groups. Because we also wanted to explore possible gender differences and possible interactions between ethnicity and gender, we included ethnicity and gender as factors in the ANOVAs. In addition, we added age (10–11 and 12–13 years) as a factor in these analyses.

386


Results Multilevel Analyses The multilevel analyses indicated no significant between-classroom variance for individual-oriented motivation (p > .10). Thus, differences in this type of motivation were not explained by the grouping structure of the class but depended on differences between children. Multilevel analyses did, however, indicate a significant between-classroom variance for family-oriented motivation, task-goal orientation, and perceived competence (for all three p < .05). Hence, family motivation, task-goal orientation, and perceived competence appeared to be determined not only by children’s characteristics but also by classroom characteristics. In each model, however, the within-classroom variance was much larger than the between-classroom variance. For family motivation, the figures were 95.7% and 4.3%, respectively. For task-goal orientation they were 96.7% and 3.3%, and for perceived competence, 97.0% and 3.0%. In short, students’ characteristics explained much more variance than classroom features did. Because of the very small between-classrooms differences, we performed standard analyses instead of the more complex multilevel analyses. Mean Scores The mean scores and standard deviations for the different measures are contained in Table 1. ANOVA yielded two significant differences between Turkish and Dutch students. As expected, the Turkish students scored higher on familyoriented motivation, and they also evaluated their ethnic identity more positively. Note that there was no ethnic difference for individual-oriented motivation. Both Turkish and Dutch students scored higher on individual-oriented motivation TABLE 1 Study 1: Adjusted Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for the Measures for Dutch (n = 607) and Turkish (n = 155) Early Adolescents Dutch Measure Individual motivation Family motivation Task-goal orientation Academic performance Perceived competence Ethnic identification ***p < .001.

Turks

M

SD

M

SD

F

4.49 3.90 4.06 5.84 3.62 4.02

0.76 1.19 0.54 1.41 0.71 0.73

4.48 4.22 3.98 5.77 3.74 4.50

0.74 1.11 0.52 1.40 0.55 0.61

0.89 8.18*** 1.73 1.12 2.01 46.93***


than on family-oriented motivation, but the difference in these scores was greater among the Dutch, t(268.21) = 3.45, p < .001. For the various measures, there was one age difference. The younger adolescents reported a more positive task-goal orientation than did those who were older, F(1, 758) = 4.18, p < .001. There were also two gender differences. Girls reported lower academic performance than boys, F(1, 759) = 8.63, p < .001, and a more positive task-goal orientation, F(1, 759) = 8.09, p < .001. The latter effect was qualified by a significant interaction effect between gender and ethnicity, F(1, 757) = 5.43, p < .05. Only among the Dutch did girls have a more positive task-goal orientation than boys. Relations Between the Measures The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between the different measures for the Turkish and Dutch adolescents are contained in Table 2. As expected, family-oriented motivation and individual-oriented motivation were more strongly related among the Turks than among the Dutch (z = 2.03, p < .05). In addition, among the Turks, family-oriented motivation was significantly related to task-goal orientation, academic performance, perceived competence, and ethnic identification. Among the Dutch, these correlations were much lower and not significant. Individual-oriented motivation was related to task-goal orientation, academic performance, and perceived competence among both ethnic groups. The first correlation was somewhat higher for the Dutch, whereas the latter two correlations were higher for the Turks. However, these differences in correlations were not significant (z < 1.22, p > .10). For both groups, ethnic identification was not related to individual-oriented motivation. TABLE 2 Study 1: Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients Between the Measures for Dutch and Turkish Early Adolescents Variable 1. Individual motivation 2. Family motivation 3. Task-goal orientation 4. Academic performance 5. Perceived competence 6. Ethnic identification

1

2

3

4

5

6

— .34*** .42*** .31*** .32*** .03

.16** — .29*** .17* .28*** .26**

.52*** .16** — .24** .25** .04

.21** .02 .42*** — .40*** .12

.21** .05 .43*** .55*** — .03

.01 .06 .02 .04 .02 —

Note. Data above the diagonal are for the Dutch adolescents. Data below the diagonal are for the Turkish adolescents. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

388


Furthermore, task-goal orientation was related to academic performance and perceived competence, but more strongly so for the Dutch than for the Turks (z = 2.03, p < .05). Also, among the Dutch the correlation between academic performance and perceived competence was stronger than among the Turks, but this difference was only marginally significant (z = 1.69, p < .10). Regression Analysis Simultaneous multiple regression analyses were performed to determine the unique contributions of individual motivation and family motivation as well as perceived competence to task-goal orientation and then to academic performance. These analyses were performed separately for the Turks and the Dutch (see Table 3). For the Turks, regressing the three predictors on task-goal orientation yielded independent positive effects for all three measures. Task-goal orientation was predicted by individual-oriented motivation, family-oriented motivation, and perceived competence. Among the Dutch, however, family-oriented motivation was not an independent predictor, whereas individual-oriented motivation and perceived competence were strong predictors. Furthermore, among the Dutch the total percentage of explained variance was greater than among the Turks. Multiple regression analyses were performed to predict academic performance using individual-oriented motivation, family-oriented motivation, perceived competence, and task-goal orientation as predictors. Table 3 shows that the total variance explained was higher for the Dutch than for the Turks. For both ethnic groups, perceived competence was the most significant predictor, followed by task-goal orientation. Among the Dutch, individual-oriented and family-oriented motivation were not significant predictors. Individual-oriented motiTABLE 3 Study 1: Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting TaskGoal Orientation and Academic Performance for the Dutch and Turkish Early Adolescents: Standardized Regression Coefficients (b) Task-goal orientation Dutch Turks

Variable Individual motivation Family motivation Perceived competence Task-goal orientation Multiple r F

.45*** .05 .31*** — .65 104.06***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

.29*** .15* .16* — .43 10.33***

Academic performance Dutch Turks .02 .03 .49*** .21*** .60 73.24***

.16* .02 .25*** .23** .48 9.55***


vation was also not a significant predictor in a regression analysis including only task-goal orientation as a predictor and not perceived competence. Thus, individual-oriented motivation that was related in univariate analyses to academic performance (Table 1) was not a significant predictor if academic performance was simultaneously regressed on both individual-oriented motivation and task-goal orientation. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), this pattern of results suggests that task-goal orientation mediated the effect of individual motivation on academic performance. Among the Turks, family-oriented motivation was not a significant predictor for academic performance (Table 3), whereas both measures were significantly related in univariate analyses (Table 1). This pattern of results suggests that taskgoal orientation mediated the relationship between family motivation and academic performance. In addition, individual motivation had an independent effect on academic performance among the Turks. Discussion The results of Study 1 show that Turkish early adolescents are members of a more collectivist cultural group and have a much stronger family-oriented achievement motivation than their Dutch contemporaries, who are members of a typical Western individualistic culture. For Turkish adolescents, academic achievement seems to have a collective meaning that is related to cultural values learned through early socialization. Two results substantiate this interpretation: First, among the Turkish participants, family-oriented motivation was positively related to ethnic identification. Participants who more strongly identified with their Turkish group and culture tended to indicate a higher level of familyoriented motivation. Among the Dutch, ethnic identification was related to neither family-oriented motivation nor individual-oriented motivation. Second, multilevel analyses showed that family-oriented motivation depended on classroom context only to a very small degree. This finding may be in part attributable to the restricted range of the measure used, but it suggests that this motivation generally differs among students. Individual-oriented motivation did not depend on the classroom context either, and for task-goal orientation and perceived competence, only small classroom differences were found. As expected, family-oriented motivation was also more strongly related to individual-oriented motivation among the Turks than among the Dutch. Furthermore, the individual-oriented motivation of the Turkish adolescents equaled that of the Dutch but was more strongly related to family-oriented motivation. Among the Turks, family-oriented motivation was not only relatively high but was also related to task-goal orientation, academic performance, and perceived competence. In contrast to the Dutch, for the Turkish students family-oriented motivation played a significant role in self-improvement, development of competence, and school results.

390


When we controlled for perceived competence, both family-oriented motivation and individual-oriented motivation were independent predictors of taskgoal orientation. However, when we used task-goal orientation as an additional predictor of performance, family-oriented motivation had no significant effect, and the effect of individual-oriented motivation was substantially reduced. This pattern of results suggests that task-goal orientation mediates the relationship between family motivation on the one hand and, to a lesser extent, individual motivation and academic performance on the other hand. Turkish children with higher family-oriented motivation had a more positive task-goal orientation, leading to better school results. For individual-oriented motivation, this mediation relationship is less obvious, and individual motivation also directly affects performance. In contrast, the pattern of results for the Dutch children clearly indicated that the relationship between individual-oriented motivation and performance was mediated by task-goal orientation. Dutch children who indicated that they work hard in school for their own satisfaction had a stronger task-goal orientation, leading to better school results. For them, family-oriented motivation played no role in task goals and performances. STUDY 2 We conducted a second study to ensure that findings from Study 1 were reliable and could be generalized to a somewhat older age group (13- to 16-yearolds). In the Dutch educational system, children leave primary school around the age of 12. In secondary education, peers play a more prominent role in students’ lives. The influence of parents on self-beliefs and motivations often remains substantial, but peers become more important (Harter, 1998). Older ethnic minority children have also been exposed to Western achievement-oriented values longer. Continuous schooling and a stronger focus on society may provide incentives and models to induce the development of an achievement motivation to which individual success and accomplishment are more central. If we take these factors into account, a pattern of results similar to those found in Study 1 would provide strong evidence for the idea that familyoriented achievement motivation is an important aspect of the collectivist culture of the Turkish group. In fact, it is an aspect that remains relevant long after immigration and one that influences task goals and school results in Western schools in which individual success, personal responsibilities, and self-actualization are emphasized. In Study 2 we did not include as many schools and classes as in Study 1. The results of the multilevel analyses indicated that the significant between-classes differences in family motivation, task goals, and perceived competence explained only a small proportion of the total variance (less than 4.3%). Therefore, we decided to include fewer schools and to focus on individual-level relationships.


Method Participants The participants were 163 Turkish students and 445 Dutch students (54% boys, 46% girls). The participants were between 13 and 16 years old (mean age = 14.5 years). The study was carried out in five secondary schools in different parts of the Netherlands. The questionnaires were administered under supervision in the classroom. The students were asked to participate in a study on attitudes toward school and toward their future. The students completed the questionnaires anonymously. Measures Individual-oriented motivation and family-oriented motivation were assessed using the same measures as in Study 1. Ethnic identification was also measured as in Study 1. Reliability analysis with the present sample yielded an alpha equal to .72 (Turks, α = .75; Dutch, α = .71). Task-goal orientation was measured using five items rated on a 5-point scale. The items were similar to those in Study 1 but were adapted to an older age group. Two sample items were “I always try to work hard at school,” and “I always want to do well on school assignments.” Alpha for the five items was .68 (Turks, α = .66; Dutch, α = .69). We measured academic performance with the Willig Scale, in which participants rated their general performance. Participants were also asked to report their grade in their weakest subject. In the Netherlands, grading in school follows a 10-point scale from 1 to 10. These items were correlated with each other (.47, p < .000), and this correlation was similar for the Turkish and Dutch participants. We measured perceived academic competence using four items of the Scholastic Competence subscale of the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents as developed by Harter (1988). This scale is an age-upward extension of Harter’s (1982) Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Reliability analysis yielded an alpha equal to .65 (Turks, α = .66; Dutch, α = .65). Results Mean Scores An ANOVA with ethnicity, gender, and age (13- to 14-year-olds and 15- to 16-year-olds) yielded several differences between the Turkish and Dutch students. Table 4 shows that the Turks scored higher on individual-oriented motivation and especially so on family-oriented motivation. Both Turkish and Dutch students scored higher on individual-oriented motivation than family-oriented motivation, but the difference between both motivations was much smaller

392


among the Turks, t(255.03) = 7.22, p < .001. Note also that among the Turks, the standard deviation for family-oriented motivation was larger than it was for the Dutch students. Levene’s test for equality of variance indicated a clear significant difference, F = 35.01, p < .001. For family-oriented motivation, there was also a significant interaction effect between ethnicity and age, F(1, 606) = 4.19, p < .05. Only among the Turks did the younger students indicate higher family-oriented motivation than the older students (M = 3.29 and M = 3.06, respectively). In addition, among both ethnic groups, family-oriented motivation was higher for boys (M = 2.45) than for girls (M = 2.25), F(1, 607) = 5.89, p < .05. Turkish students had a more positive task-goal orientation than the Dutch (Table 4). Furthermore, boys scored higher than girls on task-goal orientation, M = 3.54 and M = 3.36, F(1, 606) = 25.29, p < .001. The same held true for younger students compared with older students, M = 3.51, and M = 3.40, F(1, 605) = 6.63, p < .05. There were no significant interaction effects for taskgoal orientation. For both perceived competence and academic performance, there were significant gender differences. Boys had a more positive score than girls for perceived competence, M = 3.61 and M = 3.27, F(1, 606) = 45.94, p < .001, and for self-reported academic performance, M = 7.01, and M = 6.44, F(1, 606) = 37.86, p < .001, respectively. Regarding ethnic identification, there was a significant ethnic difference only because the Turks identified more strongly with their ethnic group than did the Dutch. Relations Between the Measures The Pearson product-moment correlations presented in Table 5 show that among the Turks, individual-oriented motivation and family-oriented motivation TABLE 4 Study 2: Adjusted Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for the Measures for Dutch (n = 445) and Turkish (n = 155) Early Adolescents Dutch Measure Individual motivation Family motivation Task-goal orientation Academic performance Perceived competence Ethnic identification **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Turks

M

SD

M

SD

4.14 2.05 3.37 6.68 3.41 3.52

0.75 0.74 0.42 1.11 0.63 0.56

4.37 3.14 3.65 6.80 3.49 3.80

0.84 1.01 0.49 1.18 0.66 0.67

F 9.96** 204.31*** 48.26*** 1.35 2.09 24.26***


TABLE 5 Study 2: Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients Between the Measures for Dutch and Turkish Early Adolescents Variable 1. Individual motivation 2. Family motivation 3. Task-goal orientation 4. Academic performance 5. Perceived competence 6. Ethnic identification

1 — .05 .23*** .16* .24*** .09

2 –.28*** — .31*** .06 .05 .37***

3 .17** .13** — .41*** .32*** .13

4 .20*** .05 .40*** — .46*** .08

5 .13** .02 .23*** .19*** — .07

6 .12* .05 .14** .07 .24** —

Note. Data above the diagonal are for the Dutch adolescents. Data below the diagonal are for the Turkish adolescents. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

were not related. Among the Dutch, however, there was a negative correlation. This difference in correlation was significant (z = 2.49, p < .01). In addition, among the Turks family-oriented motivation was significantly related to task-goal orientation and ethnic identification. Among the Dutch, these correlations were much smaller or not significant (differences in correlations, z = 1.96, p < .05, and z = 3.47, p < .01, respectively). For both ethnic groups, family-oriented motivation was not related to academic performance and perceived competence. In contrast, individual-oriented motivation was related to task-goal orientation, academic performance, and perceived competence. These correlations were similar for the Turks and the Dutch. Furthermore, for both ethnic groups, task-goal orientation had a relatively strong relationship with academic performance and with perceived competence. Perceived competence, however, was more strongly related to academic performance for the Turks than for the Dutch (z = 2.93, p < .01). Regression Analyses To predict task-goal orientation, we performed simultaneous regression analyses. Table 5 shows that perceived competence and individual-oriented motivation were significant and similarly strong predictors for both the Turks and Dutch. Family-oriented motivation was a much stronger independent predictor among the Turks than among the Dutch, however, making the total percentage of explained variance higher among the former group. In predicting academic performance, we added task-goal orientation as an additional predictor variable. The results for the Turks (Table 6) show that individual-oriented motivation and family-oriented motivation did not contribute significantly to the prediction of academic performance, whereas task-goal orientation and perceived competence were significant predictors. For the Dutch, family-

394


TABLE 6 Study 2: Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting TaskGoal Orientation and Academic Performance for the Dutch and Turkish Young Adolescents: Standardized Regression Coefficients (b) Task-goal orientation Dutch Turks

Variable Individual motivation Family motivation Perceived competence Task-goal orientation Multiple r F

.18*** .10* .22*** — .28 13.31***

.20*** .32*** .26*** — .48 15.46***

Academic performance Dutch Turks .12* .04 .11** .37*** .44 24.03***

.10 .05 .38*** .31*** .55 15.15***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

oriented motivation did not account for any variance, and individual-oriented motivation and perceived competence accounted for very little variance. Task-goal orientation was the strongest predictor of academic performance for the Dutch. Discussion As in Study 1, Turkish students turned out to have much stronger familyoriented achievement motivation than Dutch students. In addition, only among the Turks was this motivation positively related to ethnic group identification. These results support the idea that academic achievement has a more collectivist or family-related meaning for Turkish students and that this meaning is more evident for those who identify with the Turkish group and culture. Also, compared with the Dutch, for the Turks family motivation was more strongly related to taskgoal orientation; in fact, it was found to be the strongest independent predictor. These results are similar to those of Study 1, but there were also some differences. Only in Study 2 did the Turkish students have greater individual-oriented motivation than the Dutch. Phalet and Claes (1993) found the same results in their study of Turkish young adolescents. Also, in Study 1 individual motivation and family motivation were positively correlated, but in Study 2 these motivations were independent. In addition, compared with Study 1, in Study 2 the Turkish students scored substantially lower on family-oriented motivation, whereas the difference between both studies in individual-oriented motivation was much smaller. Hence, there are some differences between early and young Turkish adolescents, and similar differences were found for the Dutch students. The latter also clearly indicated lower family motivation in Study 2. In addition, for them, family motivation was correlated negatively with individual motivation, whereas in Study 1, a low positive correlation was found.


These data may indicate an age effect in combination with the transition from primary to secondary school. Among young adolescents, feelings of loyalty and obligation toward parents may become less important than achievement for the self. Compared with the Dutch, however, Turkish family-oriented achievement motivation was clearly important and consequential. For the Dutch, family motivation played a minor role in academic achievement, whereas for the Turks it was an important predictor for task-goal orientation. However, the measure of familyoriented motivation showed significantly higher variation (standard deviation) among the Turks. This finding suggests that there was a differentiation between those Turks who attached more importance to family motivation and those who were less inclined to do so. STUDY 3 We conducted a third study among young adolescents in one particular secondary school to examine the reliability of the Study 2 findings. In Study 3, other achievement data were used as educational outcome measures, and a multiethnic sample was involved. We made these changes for two reasons: First, in Studies 1 and 2, we collected data on self-reported grades as measures of academic performance. We argued that students’ relative positions in class are psychologically meaningful to their perceptions and attributions. However, versions of the instrument used in Studies 1 and 2 for measuring academic performance are seen by others as measures of perceived ability (Thorkildsen & Nicholls, 1998), or, because of their comparative nature, measures of ability or ego goal orientations. Therefore, in Study 3 we decided to collect information on the actual performances as indicated in the school records. We also obtained data on absenteeism. Second, we interpreted the Turkish students’ results as reflecting collectivist cultural values in which one’s group and family are particularly important. However, these results may also be explained in terms of a minority position involving negative stereotypes and discrimination. Achievement and achievement values have been shown to be negatively affected by unfavorable ethnic stereotypes (Steele, 1997) and by oppositional self-definitions formed in reaction to perceived discrimination (Ogbu, 1992; Waters, 1994). The higher score on family-oriented motivation among Turks may be the result of experiences with discrimination and negative stereotypes. These experiences may stimulate a stronger orientation toward one’s own group and culture. In the Netherlands, several studies have shown that members of different ethnic minority groups are confronted with prejudices and discrimination (Hagendoorn, 1995; Jackson, Brown, & Kirby, 1998; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). However, there are clear differences in the level of collectivist values between ethnic minority groups. In the Netherlands, the largest minority groups are the Turks and the Surinamese. Studies among adolescents have shown that, of

396


these two groups, second-generation Turks are the most collectivistic in behavior. For example, using the Family Integrity Scale (Triandis et al., 1993) for measuring collectivism as a cultural dimension, Verkuyten et al. (1996) and Meeus, Pels, and Vollebergh (1999) found higher collectivism among Turks. Therefore, in Study 3 the Turks as a group were compared with a group of predominantly Surinamese students. Method Participants Study 3 was conducted in a single secondary school in the center of Rotterdam. This school enrolled students from over 30 different ethnic and national groups, and its student body came from predominantly low socioeconomic backgrounds. Each ethnic group made up a small percentage of the student body, including the Dutch (6%). The largest groups were the Turks (27%) and the Surinamese (21%). For the present analyses, we focused on the students with Turkish parents (n = 104) and a group of Surinamese (n = 73), Cape Verdeans (n = 35), and Antilleans (n = 13). Members of the latter three groups are visible minorities in terms of skin color. In addition, 20 students in the study indicated that they had Dutch parents. The number of Dutch students was too small for reliable statistical analyses. Therefore, the main analyses centered on a comparison between the Turks as a group and the Surinamese, Cape Verdeans, and Antilleans as a group. (We refer to the latter group as the Surinamese et al. We also examined whether there were important differences in mean scores and correlations between the Cape Verdeans and the Surinamese. Separate analyses yielded similar results, so we decided to compare the Turks as a group with the Surinamese et al. as a group.) However, to be able to compare the findings with those of Studies 1 and 2, we also report the mean scores for the Dutch and compare them with the other groups. The final sample contained 245 students, of which 39% were boys and 61% were girls. The students were between 13 and 16 years of age (mean age = 14.5). The students were asked to participate in a study on attitudes toward school and toward their future. The participants were assured that the data gathered would remain anonymous. Measures The procedures and measures for Study 3 were similar to those used in Study 2. We assessed individual-oriented achievement motivation and family-oriented achievement motivation with the same two questions as in Studies 1 and 2. Furthermore, for task-goal orientation, items included, “During lessons I try to work as hard as I can,” “I try hard at school because I want to learn as much as


possible,” and “I always try to work hard, even when teachers’ instructions are not very clear.” Reliability analysis with the present sample yielded an alpha equal to .74, and for ethnic identification the alpha was .69. We found similar reliabilities for the separate ethnic groups. In Study 3, no measure for perceived competence was available. Instead of using self-reported grades, we used the actual grades on school reports as a measure of academic performance. In this school, students were studying eight or nine core subjects such as Dutch language, English language, history, mathematics, and physics, and six additional subjects, such as religious education, drawing, social studies, and gymnastics. To compute a grade-point average, we used the grades for the core subjects. The grade-point average, together with the frequency of absenteeism, was used as an educational outcome measure in multiple regression analyses. Results Mean Scores An ANOVA with ethnicity (Turks, Surinamese et al., and Dutch), gender, and age (13- to 14- and 15- to 16-year-olds) as variables yielded three significant effects for ethnicity (see Table 7). Significant differences were found for individual-oriented motivation and family-oriented motivation as well as for ethnic identification. We conducted one-way ANOVAs, using the Scheffé test at the .05 significance level, to examine these differences. The analyses indicated that for individual-oriented motivation and for ethnic identification there were significant differences only between the Turks and the Dutch. Turks scored higher on both TABLE 7 Study 3: Adjusted Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values for the Measures for Dutch (n = 20), Turkish (n = 104), and Surinamese et al. (n = 121) Young Adolescents

Measure Individual motivation Family motivation Task-goal orientation Academic performance Absenteeism Ethnic identification

Dutch M SD 3.83 3.95 3.46 6.13 2.12 3.39

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

0.88 0.94 0.64 0.97 1.45 0.55

M

SD

Surinamese et al. M SD

4.42 4.31 3.84 6.43 1.64 3.92

0.79 0.89 0.52 1.05 1.39 0.64

4.23 3.86 3.81 6.22 2.11 3.71

Turks

0.89 1.01 0.61 0.92 1.71 0.64

F 2.74* 5.56** 1.29 1.60 2.44 15.05***

398


TABLE 8 Study 3: Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients Between the Measures for Surinamese et al. and Turkish Young Adolescents Variable 1. Individual motivation 2. Family motivation 3. Task-goal orientation 4. Academic performance 5. Absenteeism 6. Ethnic identification

1

2

— .19* .41*** .38*** –.23* .18

–.05 — .23* .24* .12 .21*

3 .49*** –.05 — .30** –.32** .04

4 .16 .11 .28** — –.02 –.18

5

6

–.22* .01 –.06 .02 –.43*** .04 –.13 –.02 — –.01 .01 —

Note. Data above the diagonal are for the Surinamese et al. adolescents. Data below the diagonal are for the Turkish adolescents. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

measures. For family-oriented motivation the Turks scored higher than either the Dutch or the Surinamese et al., although only the difference with the Surinamese was significant. The analyses yielded one other significant effect. For all ethnic groups, boys had a higher score for ethnic identification than girls, F(2, 244) = 4.44, p < .05. No other main or interaction effects reached a .05 level of significance. Correlations In Table 8, the correlations between the different measures are presented for both the Turks and the Surinamese et al. group. Among the Turks, individualoriented motivation and family-oriented motivation were positively correlated, whereas among the Surinamese et al., a nonsignificant negative correlation was found. The difference in correlation was marginally significant (z = 1.74, p < .10). For the Dutch, this correlation was .08. In addition, for the Turks, familyoriented motivation was significantly related to task-goal orientation, academic performance, and ethnic identification. Among the Surinamese et al. and also among the Dutch, these correlations were not significant. Furthermore, familyoriented motivation was not related to absenteeism for either the Turks or the Surinamese et al. group. Individual-oriented motivation was related positively to task-goal orientation and academic performance and negatively to absenteeism. These correlations were similar for the Turks and the Surinamese et al. However, for the former, the relationship between individual motivation and academic performance was somewhat stronger (z = 1.67, p < .10). In addition, for both groups of participants taskgoal orientation was related positively to academic performance and negatively to absenteeism. Academic performance and absenteeism were not related.


Regression Analyses For the Turks, simultaneous regression analysis predicting task-goal orientation indicated that individual-oriented motivation and family-oriented motivation were significant and independent predictors (β = .35, p < .01, and β = .22, p < .05, respectively). For the Surinamese et al. group, only individual-oriented motivation was a significant predictor (β = .51, p < .001, and β = –.08, p > .10, respectively). The total percentage of explained variance was similar for the Turks (multiple r = .44) and for the Surinamese et al. (multiple r = .52). We added task-goal orientation as an additional variable for predicting academic performance. The results for the Turks show that family-oriented motivation did not contribute significantly to the prediction of performance (β = .12, p > .10), whereas individual-oriented motivation (β = .27, p < .01) and task-goal orientation (β = .21, p < .05) were significant predictors. For the Surinamese et al. group, task-goal orientation alone accounted for a significant part of the variance (β = .25, p < .01). The total amount of explained variance was higher for the Turks (multiple r = .48) than for the Surinamese et al. (multiple r = .29). For absenteeism, task-goal orientation was a significant negative predictor among both ethnic minority groups. For the Turks, the standardized beta was –0.31 (p < .01), and for the Surinamese et al. the beta was –.44 (p < .001). In addition, among the Turks, individual-oriented motivation was a significant negative predictor (β = –.22, p < .05). The multiple correlation for the Turks was .41, and for the Surinamese et al. this correlation was .45. Discussion As in Studies 1 and 2, Turkish students in Study 3 indicated higher familyoriented achievement motivation than either the Dutch or the other ethnic minority groups. Moreover, a significant positive correlation between familyoriented motivation and ethnic identification was found only among the Turks. Also, only among the Turks was family motivation related to academic performance and task-goal orientation. For the latter measure, family motivation was an independent and significant predictor. As in Study 1, there was a positive correlation between family motivation and individual motivation for the Turks, whereas these measures were not relevant for the Dutch or for the Surinamese et al. group. Furthermore, as in Study 2, the Turkish students had a higher individualoriented motivation than the Dutch and also indicated stronger identification with their ethnic group. For the Turks, individual motivation and task-goal orientation were significant positive predictors of grade-point average and negative predictors of absenteeism. In contrast, only task-goal orientation accounted for variance in academic performance and absenteeism for the Surinamese et al. group.

400


GENERAL DISCUSSION Taken together, the data from these three studies clearly describe a relationship between culture, achievement motivation, and educational outcomes. The two quotations at the beginning of this article summarize well the main differences found. In all three studies, Turkish adolescents indicated higher familyoriented achievement motivation than did their Dutch counterparts. For Turks, achievement motivation seems to have a specific cultural meaning involving feelings of loyalty and obligations toward the family. For them, the family and (probably) the wider Turkish community (De Vries, 1987) are important social influences on educational achievement. Achievement appears to be connected to collectivist values learned through early socialization. Turkish culture is typically high on collectivist values (Hofstede, 1991; Schwartz, 1992), and after migration, these values are retained and sometimes emphasized even more strongly (Roosens, 1994). Three other findings support this cultural interpretation. First, in Study 1, multilevel analysis showed that family-oriented achievement motivation depended predominantly on student characteristics and only to a very small degree on classroom context. Of the student characteristics examined, ethnicity clearly showed the strongest relationship with family motivation. Second, only among the Turks was ethnic identification positively related to family motivation, and this was found in all three studies. Thus, Turkish adolescents who identified with their ethnic group and culture were inclined to endorse family motivation more strongly than Turkish students who indicated lower ethnic identification. Third, the Turks scored higher on family motivation than other ethnic minority students attending the same school. In the Netherlands, all ethnic minority groups face negative stereotypes and discrimination in many situations. However, among adolescents of these groups there are clear differences in collectivist values, and in particular in family integrity as an aspect of collectivism (Meeus et al., 1999; Verkuyten et al., 1996). Turkish adolescents are the most collectivistic, certainly compared with the Surinamese and Antilleans. In Study 3 we found that the Turkish students indicated higher family motivation than the other minority groups. Also, for these groups, there was no correlation between family motivation and ethnic identification. Other findings in these studies help us to understand the meaning of familyoriented achievement motivation for Turkish adolescents. In particular, there is the question of the relationship between family motivation and individual motivation. In cross-cultural psychology, individualism–collectivism is the most frequently researched dimension of culture (see Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994; Markus et al., 1996). Early conceptualizations of this distinction are one-dimensional and tend to emphasize the contrast between the priority of personal goals and motives over those of the group, and the priority of the group over the self. Studies on the level of cultures and nations have indeed shown that


individualism and collectivism are opposite poles of a single continuum (Hofstede, 1991; Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1996). At the individual level of analysis, however, different studies have shown that these cultural orientations can co-exist to varying degrees within individuals and that both collectivism and individualism can influence perceptions, beliefs, and behavior (Singelis, 1994; Triandis et al., 1985). Consistent with these studies, and as expected, for the Turks, in two of our studies, a positive relationship was found between individual motivation and family motivation. In contrast, a negative correlation or no correlation was found for the Dutch and the other ethnic minority groups. Thus, for the Turkish students, there seems to be less distinction between wanting to do well at school for oneself and for one’s parents. In collectivist cultures, the expectations of significant group members are seen to be less in conflict with the individual’s own desires and choices. Individual achievements tend to be connected to family loyalty, and individuals wish to live up to family expectations by being responsible and successful. Children tend to learn to identify individual achievement with family achievement. In addition, parents from immigrant groups are often not only concerned with transmitting cultural values to their children but also with the latter’s success in school and society. Greater opportunities and chances for improvements are two of the main reasons for deciding to emigrate in the first place. Hence, children are often encouraged by their parents to seek individual and collective achievement simultaneously. In addition, children define their position and future in the country of immigration, whereas parents often remain oriented to the country of origin. This is certainly the case for Turkish immigrants living in countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium (Roosens, 1994; Verkuyten, 1997). Continuous schooling and a focus on society can be expected to provide incentives and models that induce children to develop individual achievement motivation. In Studies 2 and 3, Turkish young adolescents had stronger individualoriented motivation than the Dutch. This was not found in Study 1 among early adolescents. This difference may have been obtained because Turkish young adolescents have been exposed to Western achievement-oriented values longer. However, the mean scores in the three studies indicate that the higher score of the Turkish young adolescents was a result of the much lower scores of the Dutch. In fact, for the Turks, the mean level of individual motivation was remarkably similar and high in all three studies. Thus, Turkish early and young adolescents were equally motivated to achieve for themselves personally, and they also had an equally strong task-goal orientation in all three studies. Our results suggest that a combination of high individual achievement motivation and family achievement motivation is possible. Phalet, De Rycke, and Swyngedouw (1999) came to the same conclusion in their study of a representative sample of Turkish inhabitants of Brussels (see also Phalet & Claes, 1993). Phalet et al. (1999) showed that these Turks had a pluralist orientation in which individualist values and collectivist values were not seen to be contradictory but

402


were combined. In addition, both values were related to achievement motivation and social mobility strategies. In our three studies, when we controlled for perceived competence, we also found that individual motivation and family motivation were independently related to task-goal orientation. So it is not task goals alone that require individual motives. Fulfilling the expectations of significant others can also be an individual motive to achieve. In Studies 1 and 3 family-oriented motivation was related to academic performance for the Turks. However, regression analyses indicated that this motivation was not an independent predictor of performance. Some of our results suggest that task-goal orientation acted as a mediating variable between family motivation on the one hand and academic performance on the other hand. Taskgoal orientation did not mediate between individual motivation and academic performance. In Studies 1 and 2, individual motivation was an independent predictor of educational outcomes. In contrast, the results for the Dutch and the Surinamese et al. group indicated that task-goal orientation did mediate the relationship between individual motivation and educational outcomes. Hence, the Turkish students valued family motivation and individual motivation, and both motivations influenced educational outcomes. But the way these two motivations are important seems to differ. Family motivation had a positive effect on task-goal orientation, which, in turn, affected academic performance. However, individual motivation had a direct effect on educational outcomes. Future research needs to examine in more detail the processes responsible for these effects. In all three studies, very few gender differences were found. The role of gender for understanding students’ motivations is considered central, but findings are inconsistent and complex (Ames, 1984; Dweck, 1986; Thorkildsen & Nicholls, 1998). Some research results suggest that boys are more concerned with independence, achievement, and competition than are girls, who place greater value on maintaining social relationships. Others have argued that girls are more conscientious and task oriented. Some of these inconsistencies also appear in our studies. For example, in Study 1 Dutch girls had a more positive task-goal orientation than Dutch boys, but in Study 2, boys had a more positive task-goal orientation than girls. In Studies 1 and 2, however, boys had a higher score for self-reported academic performance than girls. This was not the case in Study 3, in which we used school records. These results may indicate that boys are more inclined to respond in a self-favoring way. In general, few gender differences were found, however. Moreover, we found only one interaction effect between gender and ethnicity showing that compared with girls, only the Dutch boys indicated a more positive task-goal orientation. Thus, we found very limited evidence for the possibility that gender differences depend on ethnicity. Three qualifications should be considered in an evaluation of the results. First, although the results for family motivation and individual motivation were


relatively strong and consistent, in the future, researchers need to examine these concepts in more detail. On the basis of interviews in the present research, we used single items that provided a clear pattern of results. However, more elaborate scales for measuring these constructs could be developed (Yu & Yang, 1994). Furthermore, apart from ethnic identification, we did not use separate measures for collectivism and individualism. Collectivism and individualism are widely discussed concepts, and some psychologists are critical of the tendency to explain cross-cultural and cross-ethnic differences in terms of these concepts (e.g., Kagitcibasi, 1994). In addition, different dimensions are suggested, such as selfreliance with hedonism, separation of own groups, family integrity, and interdependence and sociability (Triandis et al., 1993). The present research focused on family orientations, but future research could include an examination of other dimensions of collectivism as well as cultural dimensions other than collectivism and individualism (Schwartz, 1992). Second, and related to the first point, possible alternative explanations for the present findings should be considered. For example, cultural differences in response styles may be a relevant factor. In Study 2 and Study 3 the Turkish participants had a higher mean score on all of the subjective rating scales. This may be due to a tendency to acquiesce or show more extreme rating tendencies rather than higher motivation per se. However, in Study 1 the younger Turkish students did not show this pattern of higher mean scores on all rating scales. This finding suggests that the consistently higher means in the older students were not a result of response style differences. However, in the future, researchers should consider issues of response styles systematically. Furthermore, questions of cross-cultural measurement equivalence should be addressed. In the present research, the reliabilities among the two groups and for the different measures were similar, but other cross-cultural measurement issues may be relevant (see Poortinga, 1989). Third, because of the correlational nature of our studies, no causal interpretations can be made. Our hypotheses were derived from theoretical considerations and existing studies. Therefore, in setting up and testing our expectations, we used a causal framework. However, it is clear that, for example, academic performances can affect task goals and achievement motivations. A bidirectional or interactive relationship whereby different variables influence each other is plausible. Experimental and longitudinal studies are needed to examine these possible causal relations in more detail. Longitudinal studies can be used to investigate age-related differences and the development of cultural values, achievement motivation, and educational outcomes. For example, in Study 1, we found that the youngest Turkish adolescents (10–11 years old) had higher family motivation than the 12- to 13-year-olds. In addition, results of Study 2 suggest that there is a differentiation within the Turkish group between those who do and do not emphasize family motivation. However, more systematic research is needed to examine these developments, particularly in relation to the

404


transition from primary to secondary school (Simmons & Blyth, 1987; Wigfield & Eccles, 1994). The findings of the present research suggest the importance of cultural values for achievement motivation and educational outcomes. A growing number of empirical studies indicate that cultural differences have an impact on various kinds of psychological phenomena. These differences should be addressed, both in (educational) psychological theorizing and in (educational) practice. Cultural differences are challenging and should motivate researchers to examine more closely the cultural and social conditions for achievement. Such investigations will improve our understanding and theoretical sensitivity. In a world in which most societies are in fact multicultural or are rapidly becoming so, existing notions and ideas should be tested among different cultural groups. This research may also help teachers and educators to cope more effectively with the different questions and dilemmas they face in our increasingly multicultural societies. REFERENCES Ames, C. A. (1984). Achievement attributions and self-instructions under competitive and individualistic goal structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 478–487. Ames, C. A. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Bond, M. H. (1986). The psychology of the Chinese people. New York: Oxford University Press. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbusch, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Burns, R. (1979). The self-concept: Theory, measurement, development and behaviour. London: Longman. Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (1992). The cultural context of academic motives: A comparison of Filipino and American college students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23, 40–58. De Vries, M. (1987). Ogen in je rug: Turkse meisjes en jonge vrouwen in Nederland [Eyes in your back: Turkish girls and young women in the Netherlands]. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Samson. Driessen, G. (1990). Sociaal mileu en etnische herkomst als verklaring voor verschillen in onderwijspositie [Social class and ethnicity in explaining academic achievements]. Pedagogisch Tijdschrift, 15, 349–357. Duda, J. L., & Allison, M. T. (1989). The attributional theory of achievement motivation: Cross-cultural consideration. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 37–55. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals: Their role in motivation, personality and development. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 199–236). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.


Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the burden of “acting white.” The Urban Review, 18, 176–196. Graham, S. (1994). Motivation in African Americans. Review of Educational Research, 64, 55–117. Hagendoorn, L. (1995). Intergroup bias in multiple group systems: The perception of ethnic hierarchies. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 199–228). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child Development, 53, 87–97. Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents. Denver, CO: University of Denver. Harter, S. (1998). The development of self-presentations. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 553–617). New York: Wiley. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill. Huiberts, A. M., Vollebergh, W. A. M., & Meeus, W. (1999). Individualisme en collectivisme bij Nederlandse, Turkse en Marokkaanse jongeren [Individualism and collectivism among Dutch, Turkish and Moroccan youth]. Tijdschrift voor Orthopedagogiek, 38, 342–356. Jackson, J. S., Brown, K. T., & Kirby, D. C. (1998). International perspectives on prejudice and racism. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the response (pp. 101–135). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jackson, J. W., & Smith, E. R. (1999). Conceptualizing social identity: A new framework and evidence for the impact of different dimensions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 120–135. Kagitcibasi, C. (1994). A critical appraisal of individualism and collectivism: Toward a new formulation. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 52–65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kenny. D. A. (1996). The design and analysis of social interaction research. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 59–86. Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (1984). Estimating the nonlinear and interactive effects of latent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 201–210. Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.-C., & Yoon, G. (Eds.). (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kinket, B., & Verkuyten, M. (1997). Levels of ethnic self-identification and social context. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 338–354. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318. Maehr, M. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1980). Culture and achievement motivation: A second look. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 221–267). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Markus, H. R., Kitayama, S., & Heiman, R. J. (1996). Culture and “basic” psychological principles. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 857–913). New York: Guilford. Martens, E. P., & Verweij, A. O. (1997). Turken in Nederland: Kerncijfers 1996 (Turks in the Netherlands: Core figures 1996). Rotterdam: ISEO. McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20, 321–333. McInerney, D. M., Hinkley, J., Dowson, M., & Van Etten, S. (1998). Aboriginal, Anglo,

406


and immigrant Australian students’ motivational beliefs about personal academic success: Are there cultural differences? Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 621–629. Meece, J. L. (1991). The classroom context and students’ motivational goals. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: A research annual (Vol. 7, pp. 261–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Meeus, W., Pels, T., & Vollebergh, W. (1999). Etnische verschillen, ouders en leeftijdgenoten [Ethnic differences, parents and peers]. Tijdschrift voor Orthopedagogiek, 38, 357–368. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 1, Student motivation (pp. 39–73). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Niles, S. (1998). Achievement goals and means: A cultural comparison. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 29, 656–667. Ogbu, J. (1992). Differences in cultural frame of reference. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16, 483–506. Osborne, J. (1997). Race and academic disidentification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 231–241. Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57–75. Phalet, K., & Claes, W. (1993). A comparative study of Turkish and Belgian youth. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 319–343. Phalet, K., De Rycke, L., & Swyngedouw, M. (1999). Culturele waarden en acculturatievormen bij Turken en Marokkanen in Brussel. In M. Swyngedouw, K. Phalet, & K. Deschouwer (Eds.), Minderheden in Brussel: Sociopolitieke houdingen en gedragingen [Minorities in Brussels: Sociopolitical attitudes and behaviors] (pp. 41–73). Brussels: VUBpress. Phalet, K., & Lens, W. (1995). Achievement motivation and group loyalty among Turkish and Belgian youngsters. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 9, pp. 31–72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: A review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499–514. Poortinga, Y. H. (1989). Equivalence of cross-cultural data: An overview of basic issues. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 737–756. Porter, J. R., & Washington, R. E. (1979). Black identity and self-esteem: A review of studies of Black self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 5, 53–74. Porter, J. R., & Washington, R. E. (1993). Minority identity and self-esteem. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 139–161. Ramirez, M., & Price-Williams, D. R. (1976). Achievement motivation in children of three ethnic groups in the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 7, 49–60. Rasbash, J., Healy, M., Brown, W., & Cameron, B. (1998). MlwiN, version 1.00. New York: Multilevel Models Project, Institute of Education. Rogers, C. M., Smith, M. D., & Coleman, J. M. (1978). Social comparison in the classroom: The relationship between academic achievement and self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 50–57. Roosens, E. (1994). The primordial nature of origins in immigrant ethnicity. In H. Vermeulen & C. Govers (Eds.), The anthropology of ethnicity (pp. 81–104). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Spinhuis. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the context and structures of values: Theoretical ad-


vances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Simmons, R. G., & Blyth, D. A. (1987). Moving into adolescence: The impact of pubertal change and school context. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591. Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and managerial values: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 231–264. Steele, C. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 47, 723–729. Tesser, P. T. M., Merens, A., & Van Praag, C. S. (1999). Rapportage minderheden 1999: Positie in het onderwijs en op de arbeidsmarkt [Report on minorities 1999: Position in education and in the labor market]. Rijswijk, The Netherlands: Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau. Tesser, P. T. M., Van Dugteren, F. A., & Merens, A. (1996). Rapportage minderheden 1996: Bevolking, arbeid, onderwijs en huisvesting [Report on minorities 1996: Population, labor, education and housing]. Rijswijk, The Netherlands: Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau. Thorkildsen, T. A., & Nicholls, J. G. (1998). Fifth graders’ achievement orientations and beliefs: Individual and classroom differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 179–201. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing social contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520. Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. J., & Clack, F. L. (1985). Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 395–415. Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., Betancourt, H., Iwao, S., Leung, K., Salazar, J. M., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J. B., Touzard, H., & Zaleski, Z. (1993). An etic-emic analysis of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 366–383. Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65, 213–243. Van ‘t Hof, L., & Dronkers, J. (1993). Onderwijsachterstanden van allochtonen: klasse, gezin of etnische cultuur? [Poor academic performance of minorities: Social class, family or ethnic culture?]. Migrantenstudies, 9, 2–25. Verkuyten, M. (1994). Self-esteem among ethnic minority youth in Western countries. Social Indicators Research, 32, 21–47. Verkuyten, M. (1997). Discourses of ethnic minority identity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 565–586. Verkuyten, M. (2001). Global self-esteem, ethnic self-esteem and family integrity: Turkish and Dutch early adolescents in the Netherlands. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 357–366. Verkuyten, M., & De Jong, W. (1987). Zelfwaardering en onderwijsleerprestaties van Turkse kinderen [Self-esteem and educational achievements of Turkish children]. Pedagogische Studiën, 12, 498–507. Verkuyten, M., Hagendoorn, L., & Masson, K. (1996). The ethnic hierarchy among majority and minority youth in the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1104–1118. Waters, M. C. (1994). Ethnic and racial identities of second-generation Black immigrants in New York City. International Migration Review, 28, 795–820. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1994). Children’s competence beliefs, achievement values, and

408


general self-esteem: Change across elementary and middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 104–138. Yu, A.-B., & Yang, K.-S (1994). The nature of achievement motivation in collectivist societies. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 239–250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Received October 24, 2000