Does family obligation matter for students' motivation ...

Personality and Individual Differences 86 (2015) 243–248

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Does family obligation matter for students' motivation, engagement, and well-being?: It depends on your self-construal Ronnel B. King a,⁎, Fraide A. Ganotice Jr. b,c a b c

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong College of Teacher Education, Palawan State University, Puerto Princesa, Philippines

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 2 May 2015 Received in revised form 12 June 2015 Accepted 13 June 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: Family obligation Relational-interdependent self-construal Motivation Engagement

a b s t r a c t Previous studies on family obligation have mostly focused on its main effects. The aim of this study was to examine (a) how family obligation is associated with motivation, engagement, and well-being, and (b) how relational-interdependent self-construal moderates the effects of family obligation on these key outcomes. Filipino university students (n = 466) were recruited to answer the relevant questionnaires. Results showed that students with a higher sense of family obligation had better academic and well-being outcomes. These effects were more pronounced for those with high levels of relational-interdependent self-construal. In particular, for those with a high relational-interdependent self, family obligation boosted autonomous motivation and life satisfaction, as well as buffered against disaffection and negative affect. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Family obligation pertains to the psychological sense that one should help, respect, and contribute to the family (Fuligni, Tseng, & Lam, 1999). Several studies have established the importance of family obligation on various indices of overall functioning (Fuligni et al., 1999; Juang & Cookston, 2009; Telzer & Fuligni, 2009). In particular, studies have found that family obligation is associated with adaptive academic outcomes such as motivation, self-efficacy, sense of competence, and educational aspirations (Fuligni, 2001; Fuligni et al., 1999; Fuligni & Zhang, 2004; Gonzales et al., 2008). Other studies have shown that it has beneficial effects on well-being such as a higher degree of happiness and lower levels of distress (Telzer & Fuligni, 2009). However, existing studies have only measured a limited set of outcomes in relation to family obligation. Moreover, they have only tested its direct effects. It is quite likely that the effects on family obligation may be moderated by a person's self-construal. Although we know of no existing study that has empirically tested this assumption, it seems plausible given that family obligation is more important for those in collectivist cultures and less so for those in individualistic cultures (Fuligni et al., 1999). Studies have shown that those from Asian and Latin American backgrounds have a stronger sense of family obligation compared to their counterparts with European backgrounds (Fuligni et al., 1999).

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 2948 8212. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.B. King).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.027 0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Given the lack of research on how family obligation could be moderated by self-construal, the aim of the current study was to examine how family obligation is associated with both academic and well-being outcomes (direct effects) and to investigate whether self-construal moderates these associations (interaction effects). To address the limitations of the extant literature on the narrow range of outcome variables examined, we included a wide range of academic and well-being outcomes. For academic outcomes, we examined students' motivation, engagement, and disaffection. For well-being, we assessed life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect which are widely considered as the three major components of well-being (Busseri & Sadava, 2011). We also examined the interaction between family obligation and relational-interdependent self-construal in predicting these key outcomes. 1.1. Family obligation, academic, and well-being outcomes The family forms the centerpiece of an individual's life especially for those in collectivist cultures. Family obligation is a central cultural value among many cultures such as those in Asia and Latin America (Bond & Hwang, 1986; Fuligni & Zhang, 2004; Uba, 1994). The extent to which individuals feel a sense of duty to the family has important implications for academic success. Studies have shown that students with a high sense of family obligation had higher educational aspirations and had a stronger belief in the importance and value of school (Fuligni, 2001; Fuligni et al., 1999). Students from collectivist cultural backgrounds think that doing well in school provides them with a pathway to repay the sacrifices of their parents (Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-

244

R.B. King, F.A. Ganotice Jr. / Personality and Individual Differences 86 (2015) 243–248

Orozco, 1995). For example, when asked about their motivations for studying a Filipino student from Bernardo, Salanga, and Aguas (2008; p. 183) study said, “I am motivated by my mother who is striving hard for me and my sister to have a good education.” Another student reported, “I do not want to fall short of my family's dreams for me; I owe them a heavy debt of gratitude.” Studies have also shown that family obligation is related to higher levels of well-being and decreased levels of depression (Juang & Cookston, 2009; Telzer & Fuligni, 2009). Individuals who have a higher sense of family obligation may have more positive relationships with family members and experience greater degrees of social support. 1.2. Self-construal Cross-cultural psychologists have argued that people from different cultures may have different types of self-construal. People from collectivist cultures tend to include significant others in their sense of self, and have a more interdependent view of themselves (interdependent self-construal). In contrast, people from individualist cultures tend of think of themselves as autonomous and separate from others (independent self-construal) (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Even within a single culture, there are large individual differences in self-construal. Cross, Bacon, and Morris (2000) developed the RelationalInterdependent Self-Construal (RISC) Scale to measure within-culture differences in the interdependent self. People with a high relationalinterdependent self include significant others in their sense of self. While there are alternative measures of interdependent self-construal in the literature, we chose Cross et al.'s (2000) scale because it focuses more closely on a person's relationships with family members and close friends which is more aligned with the family obligation construct. Other interdependent measures of self-construal (e.g., Singelis, 1994; Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao, & Sinha, 1995) include larger social groups such as one's ethnic group and nationality which are not germane to the focus of the current study on the immediate family. In this study, we hypothesized that self-construal will moderate the effects of family obligation on key outcomes. In particular, we hypothesized that for people with high levels of relational-interdependent self, family obligation may be particularly beneficial. Individuals with different self-construals may view family obligation in distinct ways. For people with a high relational-interdependent self, assisting, respecting, and following the advice of one's family may be more well-integrated into the self-space. They may not see it as an externally-imposed obligation but as something that they have internalized (Cross et al., 2000). In contrast, duty to one's family may be perceived as externally imposed and not well-integrated into one's sense of self for those with a highly independent self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Given the importance of a sense of autonomy for healthy functioning (Ryan & Deci, 2000), the effects of family obligation on key outcomes may vary as a function of self-construal. For those with high levels of relational-interdependent self, family obligation may not be perceived as impinging on one's autonomy, but for those with an independent self-construal duty to one's family may be associated with a perceived lack of self-determination. Although this idea has not been directly tested, there seems some evidence to support this conjecture. Studies have shown that family obligation is related to positive well-being of Chinese-Americans, Filipinos, and Latin-Americans who have higher levels of relational-interdependent self (Fuligni et al., 1999).

families served as a source of motivation (Bernardo et al., 2008), strove to do well in school to please their parents (Bernardo, 2008; King, McInerney, & Watkins, 2012), and were likely to perceive parental control over academic concerns as legitimate (Bernardo, 2010). 1.4. The present study The aim of the present study was (a) to examine the direct effects of family obligation on motivation (autonomous and controlled), engagement vs. disaffection, and well-being (life satisfaction, positive affect, negative affect), and (b) to investigate the interaction effects between family obligation and relational-interdependent self-construal on motivation, engagement vs. disaffection, and well-being. Motivation refers to the reasons for wanting to do well in school, and has been recognized as a crucial factor that drives better learning and achievement (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In this study, we focused on autonomous and controlled forms of motivation. Autonomous motivation refers to reasons for doing well in school that reflect intrinsic interests or reasons that one has identified with. Controlled motivation refers to wanting to do well in school for the sake of gaining or avoiding external rewards or punishments as well as avoiding feelings of internal guilt if one does not do well (Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand, Larose, & Senecal, 2007). Engagement refers to the quality of involvement in school (Skinner, Kindermann, & Furrer, 2009). It has a behavioral component indexed by effort on persistence as well as an emotional component which is indexed by positive feelings in school. The opposite of engagement is called disaffection and is characterized by passivity, withdrawal, and negative feelings towards school (Skinner et al., 2009). Well-being is typically operationalized by life satisfaction which refers to cognitive evaluation of one's life, as well as positive and negative affect which refer to positive or negative moods that a person experiences (Busseri & Sadava, 2011). The diversity of these outcome variables can help us gain a more concrete picture of how family obligation is associated with academic and well-being outcomes. In terms of the direct effects of family obligation on the academic and well-being variables, we posited the following hypotheses: • H1: Family obligation will positively predict motivation and engagement, and negatively predict disaffection. • H2: Family obligation will positively predict positive well-being (i.e., life satisfaction and positive affect) and negatively predict negative well-being (i.e., negative affect) In terms of the interaction effects, the following hypotheses were posited: • H3: Family obligation will enhance motivation and engagement, and buffer against disaffection for those high in relationalinterdependent self. • H4: Family obligation will enhance positive well-being (life satisfaction, positive affect) and buffer against negative well-being (negative affect) for those high in relational self.

2. Methods

1.3. The Philippine context

2.1. Participants and procedures

We conducted our study in the Philippines which is considered a highly collectivist society (Hofstede, 2001), and where the family is of central importance (Miralao, 1997). Studies have shown that many Filipino students select majors that were chosen for them by their parents even if they have no personal interest in the subject matter (Miralao, 2004). Research has also found that Filipino students asserted that their

466 (68% female) university students from a state university in a provincial capital in the Philippines were recruited. The average age was 18.40 (SD = 3.39). Participants were roughly equally divided into 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year university students. Students were invited by a collaborator to answer the surveys during class time, and were informed that they can withdraw from the


study at any time without consequence. All invited students decided to participate in the study. It took about 15 min to answer the survey. 2.2. Instruments 2.2.1. Family obligation Family obligation was measured using Fuligni et al.'s (1999) Family Obligation Scale. It is a 24-item scale that assesses attitudes and expectations concerning individuals' obligation to assist, respect, and support the family (e.g., “In general how important is it to you that you treat your parents with great respect?”). The scale was rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = ‘not at all important’; 5 = ‘very important’). 2.2.2. Relational self Cross et al.'s (2000) 11-item Relational-Interdependent Selfconstrual Scale (RISC) was used to measure the students' relational self-construal (“My close relationships are an important reflection of who I am.”). It was rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). 2.2.3. Motivation Motivation was measured using an adaptation of the Academic SelfRegulation Questionnaire (Deci, Hodges, Pierson, & Tomassone, 1992). We averaged the scores for identified (“I try to do well in school because I like doing a good job on my school work.”) and intrinsic motivation (“I do my classwork because it's fun.”) subscales to come up with the autonomous motivation score. Controlled motivation was obtained by averaging scores on the external regulation (“I do my classwork so the teacher won't get angry at me.”) and introjected regulation (“I do my classwork because I'll feel bad about myself if it doesn't get done.”) subscales. This questionnaire was rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). 2.2.4. Engagement and disaffection Engagement was measured by averaging students' scores on the behavioral (“I try hard to do well at school.”) and emotional (“Class is fun.”) engagement subsales, while disaffection was measured by averaging scores on the behavioral (“I don't try very hard at school.”), and emotional (“When I'm doing work in class, I feel bored.”) disaffection subscales of the Engagement and Disaffection Scale (Skinner et al., 2009). Each of these constructs were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). 2.2.5. Well-being Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin's (1985) Life Satisfaction Scale (5 items; e.g., “I am satisfied with my life.”) was used to measure life satisfaction. It was rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = ‘strongly agree’;

245

5 = ‘strongly agree’). Positive and negative affect were measured using the 10-item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)Short Form developed by MacKinnon, Jorm, Christensen, Korten, and Jacomb (1999). It was rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = ‘strongly disagree’; 5 = ‘strongly agree’) and asks participants to rate how much they felt positive (e.g., “Excited”) and negative (e.g., “Upset”) moods. English versions of the questionnaires were used given that English is the medium of instruction in Philippine schools from primary to tertiary levels. 2.3. Data analysis Hierarchical regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. In the first step of the regression, family obligation and relationalinterdependent self were entered as predictors. In the second step, the product term between family obligation and relational self was entered. Family obligation and relational self were centered before we created the interaction term by multiplying the two variables. Significant interaction effects were further tested using simple slopes analysis (Aiken & West, 1991). 3. Results 3.1. Preliminary analyses Descriptive statistics, internal consistency reliabilities, and bivariate correlations are shown in Table 1. All the scales had acceptable Cronbach's alpha reliabilities. 3.2. Primary analyses Results of the hierarchical regression analysis indicated that family obligation positively predicted motivation (i.e., autonomous motivation and controlled motivation), engagement, and well-being (i.e., life satisfaction and positive affect). It negatively predicted disaffection (i.e., behavioral and emotional) (Table 2). We particularly focus on the interaction term between family obligation and relational self. The regression model predicting autonomous motivation with family obligation, relational self, and the product term between family obligation and relational self was statistically significant, F(3, 462) = 18.16 (p b .001), R2 = .11. In particular, the product term was significant R2 = .02; f2 = .02. Simple slopes analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) was adopted for post hoc probing into the family obligation by relational self interaction on autonomous motivation. The results are presented graphically in Fig. 1. Two lines are plotted representing students with low (−1SD) and high (+1SD) levels of relational self and the y-axis representing autonomous motivation. The slope of the line

Table 1 Descriptive statistics, internal reliabilities, and bivariate correlations. 1 1. Family obligation 2. Relational self 3. Autonomous motivation 4. Controlled motivation 5. Engagement 6. Disaffection 7. Life satisfaction 8. Positive affect 9. Negative affect Mean SD Cronbach's alpha + p b .10. ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.

2

3 .370⁎⁎⁎

1 1

.284⁎⁎⁎ .195⁎⁎⁎ 1

4

5

.192⁎⁎⁎ .181⁎⁎⁎ .539⁎⁎⁎

.241⁎⁎⁎ .129⁎⁎ .636⁎⁎⁎ .378⁎⁎⁎

1 1

6

7

8

9

−.135⁎⁎⁎ −.138⁎⁎ −.099⁎ .265⁎⁎⁎ −.259⁎⁎⁎

.327⁎⁎⁎ .357⁎⁎⁎ .295⁎⁎⁎ .178⁎⁎⁎ .261⁎⁎⁎ −.118⁎⁎⁎

.243⁎⁎⁎ .139⁎⁎ .309⁎⁎⁎ .159⁎⁎⁎ .407⁎⁎⁎ −.323⁎⁎⁎ .189⁎⁎⁎

−.071 −.094⁎ −.148⁎⁎ .116⁎ −.231⁎⁎⁎ .516⁎⁎⁎

1

1

1 4.12 .43 .88

5.19 .72 .68

3.10 .48 .74

3.39 .55 .80

3.84 .55 .88

2.53 .75 .91

4.97 .98 .76

3.85 .62 .82

−.081+ −.275⁎⁎⁎ 1 2.50 .76 .85

246


Table 2 Family obligation and relational self as predictors of motivation, engagement, disaffection, and well-being. Motivation Autonomous motivation

Controlled motivation

Engagement

Disaffection

Well-being

Engagement

Disaffection

Life satisfaction

Positive affect

Negative affect

β

t

β

t

β

t

β

t

β

t

β

t

β

t

Step 1 Family obligation Relational self

.245⁎⁎⁎ .104⁎

5.14 2.18

.144⁎⁎ .127⁎⁎

2.95 2.61

.224⁎⁎⁎ .046

4.62 .94

−.098⁎ −.10⁎

−1.98 −2.06

.226⁎⁎⁎ .274⁎⁎⁎

4.96 6.01

.222⁎⁎⁎ .057

4.59 1.17

−.043 −.078

−.86 −1.56

Step 2 Family x Relational Step 1 R2 change Step 2 R2 change Total R2

.127⁎⁎ .090⁎⁎⁎ .016⁎⁎ .105⁎⁎⁎

2.85

.039 .050⁎⁎⁎ .002 .052

.86

.056

1.23 .060⁎⁎⁎ .003 .063

−.090+ .027⁎ .008+ .035+

−1.94

.118⁎⁎ .172⁎⁎⁎ .014⁎⁎ .185⁎⁎

2.78

.015 .062⁎⁎⁎ .000 .062

.34

−.089+ .010+ .008+ .018+

−1.90

+ p b .10. ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.

representing low levels of relational self is positive and significant (b = .15; p = .03), and the slope of the line representing high levels of relational self is also positive and significant (b = .42; p b .001). These results show that for those with high levels of relational self-construal, family obligation enhances autonomous motivation. This relationship albeit positive is weaker for those with low relational self. For the sake of parsimony, in subsequent parts of the paper, low relational self would refer to those one standard deviation below the mean and high relational self would mean those one standard deviation above the mean. The product term refers to the interaction between family obligation and relational self. Fig. 2 shows the simple slopes analysis for disaffection where we found the product term between family obligation and relational self to be statistically significant R2 = .01; f2 = .01. The slope of the line representing low levels of relational self is not significant (b = −.04; p = .74), but the slope of the line representing high levels of relational self was negative and significant (b = −.34, p = .01). This shows that for those with high levels of relational self, family obligation buffers against behavioral disaffection but not for those with low levels of relational self. Fig. 3 depicts the simple slope analysis for life satisfaction where we found the product term to be statistically significant: R2 = .01; f 2 = .01. Results indicated that for those with low levels of relational self, family obligation was positively associated with life satisfaction (b = .28; p = .03); but this association was stronger for those with high levels of relational self (b = .80; p b .001). This means that family obligation seems to boost life satisfaction for people with higher levels of relational self.

Fig. 4 is a graphical representation of the simple slopes analysis for negative affect where we found the product term was marginally significant R2 = .01; f2 = .01. For those with low levels of relational self, family obligation was not associated with negative affect (b = .06; p = .60). However, for those with high relational self, family obligation was negatively associated with negative affect (b = −.25; p = .05). This means that family obligation seems to buffer against negative affect for people with high levels of relational self. 4. Discussion The aim of this study was to examine the direct effects of family obligation as well as how it is moderated by relational-interdependent self on key academic and well-being outcomes. In terms of the direct effects, we found support for H1. Family obligation positively predicted motivation and engagement, and negatively predicted disaffection. We also found partial support for H2. Family obligation positively predicted life satisfaction and positive affect. In terms of the interaction effects, we found partial support for H3. Family obligation was associated with higher levels of autonomous motivation and lower levels of disaffection for those high in relational-interdependent self. Partial support for H4 was also found. Family obligation was associated with higher levels of life satisfaction and lower levels of negative affect for those high in relationalinterdependent self. This study makes several contributions to the extant literature. To our knowledge, this is the first study that has actually documented interaction effects for family obligation with previous studies only

5

Autonomus motivation

4.5 4 3.5

Low relational self High relational self

3 2.5 2 1.5 1

Low family obligation High family obligation Fig. 1. Interaction of family obligation and relational-interdependent self on autonomous motivation.


247

5 4.5

Disaffection

4 3.5


3 2.5 2 1.5 1

Low family obligation High family obligation Fig. 2. Interaction of family obligation and relational-interdependent self on disaffection.

focusing on main effects. Researchers have noted that psychological theorizing could be significantly enriched in terms of theoretical precision by considering more than main effects (Hough, 2003). The exclusive focus on main effects may preclude us from finding how key individual differences interact with psychological constructs. In this study, we corroborated the findings of the existing literature that family obligation is beneficial for overall adjustment. However, we added a key nuance to this generalization by providing empirical evidence that it is people with high levels of relational-interdependent self who seem to benefit most from family obligation. People with a low relationalinterdependent self do not seem to be able harvest the benefits associated with family obligation. Family obligation may be experienced as more internalized and integrated into one's self for those with high levels of the relational-interdependent self, thus accounting for its association with more adaptive outcomes. This is consistent with theorizing in self-determination theory which foregrounds the importance of autonomy for positive functioning (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Another key contribution of the study was broadening the set of outcomes associated with family obligation, thus expanding its nomological network. In this study, we assessed a wide range of academic outcomes including measures of students' motivation, engagement, and disaffection. Including a wider range of educational variables allowed us to have a more comprehensive picture of how family obligation relates to key learning processes. The

overall picture we obtained was that family obligation is positively associated with various indicators of academic and socioemotional functioning. The positive association between family obligation and controlled motivation deserves additional comment. In the Western literature, autonomous motivation is usually considered adaptive and controlled motivation as maladaptive (Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, in collectivist cultures, there is evidence that these two forms of motivation are less distinct. Studies have also shown that controlled motivation is highly correlated with autonomous motivation (e.g., Caleon et al., 2015), and is not as maladaptive as it is thought to be in Western studies (Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005). This is because for people with high levels of the relational-interdependent self, achieving in order to conform with social expectations or externally imposed norms (controlled motivation) may not be experienced as detrimental to one's autonomy. We also found that family obligation was positively associated with engagement and negatively associated with disaffection. Engagement and disaffection have gained increasing attention in the research literature because of their crucial importance for learning (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). To our knowledge, our study is the first study to document the linkage between family obligation and engagement vs. disaffection. These findings support the existing studies showing that family obligation is associated with adaptive school outcomes (Fuligni et al., 1999).

7

5

6

4.5

High relational self

4

5 Negative affect

life satisfaction

Low relational self

4 3 2


1 Low family obligation High family obligation Fig. 3. Interaction of family obligation and relational-interdependent self on life satisfaction.

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Low family obligation

High family obligation

Fig. 4. Interaction of family obligation and relational-interdependent self on negative affect.

248


Our results provide contrary evidence to studies showing that family responsibilities may deter students from fulfilling academic requirements. Some studies for example, have shown that students may need to stop schooling and gain employment if their family needs support. Suárez-Orozco and Suárez-Orozco's (1995) study has shown that Latin-American students from very poor families feel the need to cut back on their studies when there is a financial crisis. While education remains important, these students see their families face more pressing needs that demand immediate attention. An important difference of our study with theirs is that our sample came from middle-class Filipino students, who may not have experienced dire financial straits that would have forced them to drop out of school and find employment. While we did not investigate socio-economic status in (SES) our study, it is possible that SES affects whether a sense of duty to one's family will be beneficial or detrimental for academic outcomes. For those who need to support their family financially in an urgent manner, dropping out of school in order to find employment may be more likely for those who have a strong sense of duty to the family. We also found that family obligation was positively associated with well-being. Family obligation may be a “cultural resiliency factor” (Telzer, Gonzales, & Fuligni, 2014) that promotes overall functioning. Students who have internalized the values of their family may feel more closely connected to and deeply embedded within a supportive network. This corroborates findings in the extant literature showing that family obligation is associated with effective coping strategies (Telzer et al., 2014). Despite its strengths, this study also has several limitations. First, given the correlational nature of the study, we could not draw causal conclusions. Future research may consider experimental manipulations of self-construal, to examine whether self-construal causes the differential effects of family obligation on key outcomes. Second, our sample was based on Filipino students. Future studies may consider including samples from other cultures to test the cross-cultural generalizability of our findings. Third, all the data we included in the current study were based on self-reports. Future studies may use teacher and peerreports or actual behavioral indicators to complement self-report data. Taken together, family obligation seems to be an important cultural value that has beneficial consequences especially for those with high levels of relational-interdependent self. The family is an important resource for students who are embedded in collectivist cultures, and may help promote optimal functioning. References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2008). Individual and social dimensions of Filipino students' achievement goals. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 886–891. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2010). Exploring Filipino adolescents' perceptions of the legitimacy of parental authority over academic behaviors. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 271–280. Bernardo, A. B. I., Salanga, M. G. C., & Aguas, K. M. C. (2008). Filipino adolescent students' conceptions of learning goals. In O. S. Tan, D. M. McInerney, A. D. Liem, & A. -G. Tan (Eds.), What the West can learn from the East: Asian perspectives on the psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 169–190). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. (1986). The social psychology of Chinese people. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 213–266). London: Oxford University Press. Busseri, M. A., & Sadava, S. W. (2011). A review of the tripartite structure of subjective well-being: Implications for conceptualization, operationalization, analysis, and synthesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 290–314. Caleon, I. S., Wui, G. L., Tan, J. P. -L., Chiam, C. L., Tan, C. S., & King, R. B. (2015). Crosscultural validation of the Academic Motivation Scale: A Singapore study. Child

Indicators Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12187-014-9298-7 (Published Online First January 2015). Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent selfconstrual and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791–808. Deci, E. L., Hodges, R., Pierson, L., & Tomassone, J. (1992). Autonomy and competence as motivational factors in students with learning disabilities and emotional handicaps. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 457–471. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109. Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Family obligation and the academic motivation of adolescents from Asian, Latin American, and European backgrounds. In A. Fuligni (Ed.), Family obligation and assistance during adolescence: Contextual variations and developmental implications (New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development Monograph No. 94 (pp. 61–76). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fuligni, A., Tseng, V., & Lam, M. (1999). Attitudes toward family obligation among American adolscents with Asian, Latin American, and European backgrounds. Child Development, 70, 1030–1044. Fuligni, A. J., & Zhang, W. (2004). Attitudes toward family obligation among adolescents in contemporary urban and rural China. Child Development, 75, 180–192. Gonzales, N. A., German, M., Kim, S. Y., George, P., Fabrett, F. C., Millsap, R., et al. (2008). Mexican-American adolescents' cultural orientation, externalizing behavior and academic engagement: The role of traditional cultural values. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 151–164. Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hough, L. (2003). Emerging trends and needs in personality research and practice: Beyond main effects. In M. R. Barrick, & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work (pp. 289–325). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Juang, L. P., & Cookston, J. T. (2009). A longitudinal study of family obligation and depressive symptoms among Chinese American adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 396–404. King, R. B., McInerney, D. M., & Watkins, D. A. (2012). Studying for the sake of others: The role of social goals on academic engagement. Educational Psychology, 32, 749–776. Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 184–196. MacKinnon, A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Korten, A. E., & Jacomb, P. A. (1999). A short form of the positive and negative affect schedule: Evaluation of factorial validity and invariance across demographic variables. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 405–416. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. Miralao, V. A. (1997). The family, traditional values, and the sociocultural transformation of Philippine society. Philippine Sociological Review, 45, 189–215. Miralao, V. A. (2004). Filipino youth in special high schools. Quezon City, Philippines: UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines and Philippine Social Science Council. Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senecal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 734–746. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. Singelis, T. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591. Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children's behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 493–525. Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (1995). Transformations: Immigration, family life, and achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Telzer, E. H., & Fuligni, A. J. (2009). Daily family assistance and the psychological wellbeing of adolescents from Latin American, Asian, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1177–1189. Telzer, E. H., Gonzales, N., & Fuligni, A. J. (2014). Family obligation values and family assistance behaviors: Protective and risk factors for Mexican-American adolescents' substance use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 270–283. Triandis, H. C., Chan, D. K. -S., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Iwao, S., & Sinha, J. B. P. (1995). Multimethod probes of allocentricism and idiocentricsm. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 461–480. Uba, L. (1994). Asian Americans: Personality patterns, identity, and mental health. London: Guilford Press.