University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The relationship of model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American college students

(USC Thesis Other)

The relationship of model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American college students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
THE RELATIONSHIP OF MODEL MINORITY STEREOTYPE,
ASIAN CULTURAL VALUES, AND ACCULTURATION TO GOAL
ORIENTATION, ACADEMIC SELF-EFFICACY, AND ACADEMIC
ACHIEVEMENT IN ASIAN AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS

by

Heekyung Cho

___________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Heekyung Cho
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost, thank you, God, my Father in heaven. You have
blessed me abundantly and everything is possible with you.
Thanks to my chairperson, Dr. Ruth Chung, who has served as my advisor
through my journey in development as a researcher and educator. I appreciate the
continuous support and guidance you gave me. I also would like to thank the
members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Kathy Stowe, Dr. Mary Andres, and Dr.
Maryann Wu who have provided me valuable feedback, knowledge, and
affirmation. I was truly blessed with an amazing group of individuals who
nurtured me as a researcher. I also would like to thank my statistician, Dr. Youn
Oh. Thank you for helping me through the hurdles of sorting through my data and
making sense of it all.
Words cannot express the heartfelt love and deepest appreciation that I have
for so many loved ones — my parents Kang Sam and Jung Lei, my husband
Gregory, Mark, Hannah, Prescott, Grace, Hee Chan, Eun Jung, Hyun Bin, Jerry, Ki
Sup, Il Gu, Myung Kyu, Joon, Sumi, Jade, Stacey, Helen, Sarah and all of my
friends. Thank you so much. My heart will always be filled with gratefulness
for each and every one of you.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES vi

ABSTRACT vii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Asian American Academic Achievement 1
Background of the Study 4
Goal Orientation and Achievement 4
Self-efficacy and Achievement 7
Theoretical Frameworks Used in the Study 10
Goal Orientation Theory 10
Academic Self-efficacy 11
Importance of the Study 12
Purpose and Goal of the Study 14

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 16
Asian Americans 16
Model Minority Stereotype (MMS) 17
Asian American MMS 17
MMS Influence on Achievement of
Asian Americans 20
Asian Cultural Values (ACV) 22
ACV Constructs 22
ACV Influence on Achievement of
Asian Americans 24
Acculturation (ACC) 27
Theories of ACC 27
Adaptation of ACC: Behavioral and
Values Acculturation 31
ACC Influence on Asian Americans 33
Summary 35
Purpose of the Study 37
Research Questions 38

iv

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY 40
Participants 40
Instruments 43
Model Minority Stereotype (MMS) 43
Asian Cultural Values (ACV) 44
Acculturation (ACC) 46
Goal Orientation 47
Academic Self-Efficacy 47
Academic Achievement 48
Procedure 49
Data Analysis 49

Chapter 4: RESULTS 51
Preliminary Analyses 51
Correlations 51
Analyses of Research Questions 55
Research Question 1 55
Research Question 2 57
Research Question 3 58

Chapter 5: DISCUSSION 61
Discussion of Primary Results 61
Relationship of MMS, ACV and ACC
to Goal Orientation 61
Relationship of MMS, ACV and ACC
to Academic Self-efficacy 63
Relationship of MMS, ACV and ACC
to Academic Achievement 66
Implications 68
Limitations of the Study 71
Future Research Directions 73
Conclusion 75

REFERENCES 76

v

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Information Sheet for Non-medical
Research 86
APPENDIX B: Demographic Information 89
APPENDIX C: Internalization of Model Minority
Stereotype Scale (IMMSS) 91
APPENDIX D: Asian American Values Scale-
Multidimensional (AAVS-M) 95
APPENDIX E: Asian American Multidimensional
Acculturation Scale (AAMAS) 99
APPENDIX F: Goal Orientation Scale: Task
Preferences 101
APPENDIX G: Self-Efficacy for Learning and
Performance (SELP) Scale of Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
(MSLQ) 103

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Frequency Distribution of Student Participants 41

Table 2: Frequency Distribution of Parental Highest
Education Level 43

Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson
Product Correlations for Measured Variables 52

Table 4: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis
for Performance-Goal Orientation 56

Table 5: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis
for Mastery-Goal Orientation 57

Table 6: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis
for Academic Self-efficacy 58

Table 7: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis
for Academic Achievement - SAT Scores 59

Table 8: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis
for Academic Achievement - Number of AP
Classes Taken 60

vii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship of Model Minority
Stereotype (MMS), Asian Cultural Values (ACV), and Acculturation (ACC) to
goal orientation, academic self-efficacy and academic achievement for Asian
American college students. Participants included 182 Asian American
undergraduates who completed an online survey. Results suggested that MMS,
ACV, and ACC were all important predictors of goal orientation in Asian
American college students. Belief in the MMS under the Internalization of Model
Minority Stereotype Scale (IMMSS) was found to be a significant predictor for
academic self-efficacy. In relation to academic achievement, MMS and ACV
were found to be correlated with Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores. MMS
and ACC to European American culture were correlated with the number of
Advanced Placement (AP) classes taken. While some previous studies had
investigated the various cultural and familial influences on the academic
achievement of Asian American college students, this study provided a unique
opportunity for researchers and practitioners to gain an understanding of the
specific pattern of relationship of MMS, ACV, and ACC to goal orientation,
academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American college
students. With this new knowledge, researchers and practitioners may be able to
viii

continue to build a stronger understanding of the role of MMS, ACV, and ACC on
the academic achievement of Asian American college students.

1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Asian American Academic Achievement
The United States (U.S.) Census Bureau (2010) reported that the Asian
American community comprised of over 13.8 million persons representing
approximately 4.5% of the entire U.S. population, and foresaw the Asian American
population rising from 4.5% to 7.8% by 2050. Thus, Asian Americans are
expected to be the second fastest growing ethnic minority group (after Hispanic
Americans) in the U.S. during this period. An important fact about this 2010
census data was that Asian Americans in general had higher-than-average
educational attainment in all academic achievement categories (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2010).
Asian Americans were often cited as having higher Grade Point Averages
(GPAs) and test scores than students of any other ethnicities. According to the
2005 high school transcript study, Asian Americans had an average GPA of 3.16
compared to 2.69, 2.82, and 3.05 for Black, Hispanic, and White students,
respectively (U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences &
National Center for Education Statistics, 2005). Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)
scores also indicated higher averages for Asian Americans than all other students
(College Board, 2008). For example, Asian Americans had average math
2

subscores of 581, critical reading subscores of 513, and writing subscores of 516,
compared to 515, 502, and 494 for Black, Hispanic, and White students,
respectively. Regarding other subjects such as U.S. History, the percentage of
students’ achievement level was 20% for Asian Americans, compared to 10% for
students of any other ethnicities. Additionally, the 12
th
graders’ average science
score was 164 for Asian Americans, compared to 125, 135, and 160 for Black,
Hispanic, and White students, respectively (U.S. Department of Education, 2009).
Furthermore, Asian Americans were the fastest growing racial minority
group in seeking higher education (Samura, 2010). According to a report released
by the American Council on Education in 2005, Asian American college
enrollment increased by 54% between 1991 and 2001 with about 937,000 attending
college (Harvey & Anderson, 2005). Recent studies also indicated that 49.4% of
Asian Americans older than 25 years of age completed post-secondary degrees
compared to 28.3% for White non-Hispanics, 14.8% for African Americans and
11.5% for Hispanics of individuals in the same age group (Das, 2010), and 20% of
them reported holding an advanced degree (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Asian
Americans were also over-represented at American’s most prestigious universities,
comprising roughly 50% of the freshmen at the University of California at
Berkeley and 10% to 30% of students in many other elite universities (Arenson,
2007). The evidence for high educational achievements was quite convergent.
Thus, over the past two decades, Asian American students were portrayed by the
popular press and the media as successful minorities (Suzuki, 2002; Wu, 2002), and
3

the reasons for their achievement were widely speculated upon by theorists of
various disciplines (Chen, 1995; Lee, 1996; Samura, 2010; Sue & Okazaki, 2009).
A number of different theories were developed to account for the over-
achievement of Asian American students (Crystal, 1989; Das, 2010; Yee, 1992).
Early perspectives suggested that there existed genetic differences in cognitive
functioning or intelligence levels that contributed to Asian American students’
academic achievement (Vernon, 1982). However, these perspectives lost favor
due to lack of empirical support (Fong, 2002) and generated intense debates (Sue &
Okazaki, 1995). One prevalent theory focused on the influence of Asian
American cultural values, particularly values that emphasized the importance of
education and hard work, the need to fulfill family obligations, and respect for
elders such as parents and teachers (Brown, Lent & Multon, 1991; Fong, 2002).
Sue and Okazaki (2009) pointed out that such arguments ignored the heterogeneity
of the Asian American group, the lack of empirical research identifying specific
cultural factors associated with achievement, and the influence of social context
and the limited opportunities for Asian Americans in non-educational fields.
They further stated that the attribution of Asian American achievements to cultural
factors could result in disputes involving cultural superiority or deficits.
Although Asian Americans demonstrated exceptional achievement patterns
in the search of factors that influenced these achievement levels, single
explanations could not adequately account for their achievements (Das, 2010).
Since research on heredity, culture, child-rearing practices, educational
4

experiences, and personality, among other topics, yielded inconclusive results, this
study sought to explore contextual variables such as Model Minority Stereotype
(MMS), and Asian Cultural Values (ACV), as well as Acculturation (ACC) in
relation to academic achievement in Asian American college students.

Background of the Study
Goal Orientation and Achievement
In recent years, many researchers and practitioners increasingly began to
study goal orientation and its impact on student achievement in culturally-diversed
groups (Wu, 2006). Learners entered learning situations with different
achievement goals, which led them to different response patterns in competence-
related activities (Dweck & Elliot, 1988). Achievement goals refer to the general
purposes or reasons for engagement in a particular achievement behavior (Pintrich,
2000). These achievement goals are aimed at developing or demonstrating
competence either to oneself or to others through successful performance on
achievement-related tasks (Deemer, Haase, Jome & Martens, 2009).
There are two types of goal orientations that have been commonly
investigated namely, performance-goal orientation and mastery-goal orientation.
Performance-goal orientation is defined in terms of a focus on demonstrating
normally high competence or ability, seeking recognition of accomplishments,
avoiding looking dumb, and avoiding performing poorly. On the other hand,
5

mastery-goal orientation is defined by a focus on learning, understanding,
mastering tasks, and personal improvement (Ames, 1992; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
Numerous studies have examined the effects of goals on learning activities
and outcomes, and have generally found mastery goals and performance goals to be
associated with various motivational variables that influenced learning behaviors
(Barker, Dowson & McInerney, 2002). Bell and Kozlowski (2002) conducted an
experiment to examine the relationships among goal orientation, self-efficacy, task
performance, and knowledge of study strategies in a college setting. In their
study, they found that only mastery-goal orientation was positively and
significantly related to self-efficacy and task performance. They concluded that
there was an indirect relationship between goal and learning outcomes when other
motivational variables were involved.
Mastery-goal orientation was found to lead towards higher self-efficacy,
self-regulatory competence, and strategy usage (Dweck & Elliot, 1988). Mastery
goal-oriented students had stronger intrinsic interest and positive attitudes toward
learning activities than students with performance-goal orientation (Ryan & Brown,
2005). Thus, achievement goals were positive predictors of positive affects such
as eagerness, hope, and excitement, and avoidance goals were positively related to
negative affects such as worry, fear, and anxiety (Elliot & McGregor, 2002).
Findings strongly suggested that mastery-approach goals were associated with
initiation of self-regulation, choice of deep learning strategies, high self-monitoring
and control of cognition during engagement, persistence in the face of difficulty,
6

interpretation of feedback in relation to progress, and self-evaluation of
comprehension (Pintrich, 2000). However, what is important to note is the fact
that increased interest and involvement in a task, which was generally associated
with mastery goals, were not necessarily sustained by high levels of actual
performance in that task (Ryan & Brown, 2005).
According to Locke and Latham (2002), goals could affect performance
through four processes:
1. Directive — They focused their attention in goal-relevant activities at both
cognitive and behavioral levels;
2. Energizing — High-difficulty goals were associated with an increased
expenditure of effort compared to low difficulty goals;
3. Influence on persistence in an activity — The level of goal difficulty and the
amount of time in which an activity could be completed led to differential
trade-offs between intensity of effort and time spent on the given activity; and
4. Facilitation in the use of task-relevant knowledge and strategies.
Wolters, Yu and Pintrich (1996) suggested that goals predicted high levels of
task value and the employment of cognitive and metacognitive strategies which
could be highly correlated with the academic achievement of Asian American
college students in this study. Both academic achievement and goal orientation
have also been studied in association with the concept of self-efficacy (Bandura,
1993; Gore, 2006; Zimmerman, 2000).

7

Self-efficacy and Achievement
Bandura (1986) defined self-efficacy as “people’s judgments of their
capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated
types of performance” (391). Personal achievements depended not only on skills
and abilities but also on self-beliefs of efficacy to use those skills effectively
(Bandura, 1986). An individual who possessed the same knowledge and ability
may have demonstrated poor, sufficient, or extraordinary performance depending
on fluctuations in self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1993). According to Bandura
(1977), self-efficacy expectations impacted behavior through cognitive,
motivational, affective, and selection processes to regulate people’s thoughts,
feelings, motivation, and behaviors.
Individuals who were characterized by high self-efficacy were more
inclined to visualize success scenarios which functioned as positive guides for
performance. Those who perceived themselves low in self-efficacy more often
constructed failure scenarios that damaged performance by directing focus to what
could go wrong. These expectations of success or failure also affected the amount
of effort individuals expended in these situations and their persistence in the face of
obstacles and negative experiences (Bandura, 1993). Individuals who were
confident in their capabilities to accomplish certain tasks exerted greater effort in
the face of any challenges or obstacles, whereas individuals who had doubt in their
capabilities were more likely to decrease their efforts or prematurely terminate their
attempts and accept a mediocre solution (Bandura, 1989; Zimmerman, 2000).
8

Brown, Larkin, and Lent (1989) performed regression analysis using self-
efficacy, high school rank, and math Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT)
scores to predict college Grade Point Averages (GPAs) in science and technical
courses, persistence in a technical major, and the range of perceived technical and
scientific career options. Consistent with the results of the researchers’ previous
studies, subjects who reported higher self-efficacy achieved higher grades and
persisted in the college of technology longer than did students who reported
relatively lower self-efficacy. Regression analysis indicated that self-efficacy for
academic milestones and educational requirements contributed a significant amount
of variance beyond math PSAT scores and high school rank in predicting students’
GPAs in science or technical courses (Brown, Larkin & Lent, 1989).
Self-efficacy also accounted for significant variance beyond the
contribution of high school rank in the prediction of persistence in the college of
technology. Additionally, self-efficacy added unique variance to the regression
equation predicting the range of perceived technical and scientific career options.
The results of this series of regression analyses suggested that independent of
interests, mathematical ability, and past achievement, self-efficacy aided in the
prediction of grades in technical and scientific courses, retention, and the range of
perceived career options (Brown, Larkin & Lent, 1989). Furthermore, Brown,
Lent, and Multon (1991) used a meta-analysis technique to study the relationship
between self-efficacy and academic performance and persistence. Results of their
9

analysis revealed that self-efficacy was significantly and positively associated with
both academic performance and persistence across a variety of student samples.
Dembo and Eaton (1997) compared the motivational beliefs and
achievement levels of Asian American students and non-Asian American students.
In the same level classes, Asian American students exhibited higher levels of
achievement than did non-Asian American students. However, assessment of
students’ motivational beliefs revealed that Asian American students reported
higher levels of fear of failure and lower levels of general self-efficacy than did
their non-Asian American counterparts. Fear of academic failure was the greatest
predictor of academic achievement behavior of Asian American students; in
contrast, this factor least explained the performance of non-Asian American
students.
Furthermore, Dembo and Eaton (1997) proposed that Asian American
students’ relatively high levels of fear of failure may have been due to parental
pressure to succeed academically and the shame and criticism that may have
resulted from such poor performance. The finding that Asian American students
had lower self-efficacy was noteworthy in relation to this group’s higher levels of
academic achievement. The same finding also suggested that Asian American
students had higher goals and standards for their academic performance, which then
motivated them to apply greater effort to accomplish their goals. Alternative
explanations offered for the relationship between self-efficacy and Asian American
students’ achievement included traditional Asian cultural values of modesty and
10

self-effacement and the tendency of non-Asian American students to overestimate
their own capabilities relative to their actual performance (Buchanan & Selmon,
2008; Gore, 2006).

Theoretical Frameworks Used in the Study
This study incorporated the following theories in selecting the constructs of
interest — goal orientation theory and academic self-efficacy. A brief overview
of these theories is described in this section.

Goal Orientation Theory
Achievement goals provide a clear explanation of students’ motivation and
performance. There are two types of goals in the theory namely, mastery goals
and performance goals (Maehr & Midgley, 1991; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
Mastery goal-oriented students who approached tasks in a more adaptive manner
were more likely to use various strategies to improve learning quality such as
deeper processing strategies to encode information and self-regulatory strategies to
manage interactions with the learning environment. They engaged in tasks in
order to master new knowledge and skills and to gain a sense of efficacy (Dweck &
Elliot, 1988). In contrast, performance goals led students to mal-adaptive learning
patterns (i.e., withdrawal of effort on encountering difficulty; decreased interest;
preference for easy tasks) and an attribution of failure to lack of ability (Dweck &
Elliot, 1988; Smith, Duda, Allen & Hall, 2002). They were associated with
11

ineffective or the superficial use of strategies (Ames, 1992; Pintrich & Schunk,
2002).
Since goal orientation theory related to achievement emerged as a highly
influential framework for understanding how people define, experience, and
respond to a competence-relevant situation, including the classroom, the workplace,
and the ballfield (Pintrich, 2000), this helped in understanding academic
achievement in Asian American college students for this study. Goal orientation
theory including cognitive, affective, and behavioral components, is highly relevant
to explaining different academic behaviors and performances (Pintrich & Schunk,
2002).

Academic Self-efficacy
Academic self-efficacy refers to a person’s confidence and belief that they
can perform various academic tasks (Bandura, 1997). This attitude has been
found to be a successful predictor of academic achievement (Gore, 2006; Hsieh,
Sullivan & Guerra, 2007; Pintrich & Shunk, 2002). Self-efficacy beliefs, or an
individual’s internal judgments of his or her own capabilities to organize and
execute a course of action necessary to manage future performance, plays a
determining role in motivation or learning. Self-efficacy is a core motivational
construct in social cognitive theory, emphasizing that achievement is influenced by
interactions among personal, environmental, and behavioral factors (Bandura,
1986). These factors in turn affect the degree of motivation an individual has in
12

choosing actions, exerting effort, and persisting in a goal-directed task (Pintrich &
Schunk, 2002).
According to Bandura’s (1977) theory, self-efficacy expectations impact
behavior through cognitive, motivational, affective, and selection processes to
regulate people’s thoughts, feelings, motivation and behaviors. Since researchers
suggested that self-efficacy was significantly and positively associated with both
academic performance and persistence (Bandura, 1989; Brown, Larkin & Lent,
1989; Printrich & Schunk, 2002; Zimmerman, 2000), it should be a critical
component in understanding academic achievement of Asian American college
students in this study.

Importance of the Study
Considerable research in education and educational psychology revealed
that motivational variables including goal orientations and self-efficacy are highly
related to students’ academic achievements (Bandura, 1993; Brown, Larkin & Lent,
1989; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Zimmerman, 2000). Empirical studies indicated
that self-efficacy is positively related to the persistence that individuals deploy
when facing failure through better calibration of effort and selection of adequate
strategies (Bandura & Locke, 2003). Bandura and Lock (2003) also suggested
self-efficacy beliefs were reflected at the level of goal setting, planning strategies,
implementation of strategies, and assessments of performance levels. More
13

interestingly, Al-Harthy, Was, and Isaacson (2010) found that academic self-
efficacy had a stronger effect on academic performance than other motivational
variables, such as self-regulation and moderated goal orientation.
Among many predictors of students’ academic achievement, goal-
orientation and self-efficacy were known to have dramatic impacts on students’
motivation and academic performances (Dembo & Eaton, 1997; Elliot &
McGregor, 2002). As a result, students who were highly goal-oriented and more
efficacious outperformed by investing more mental effort and demonstrating
perseverance when faced with difficulty (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). However,
despite the rapid growth of culturally diverse groups in the United States (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2010) and increasingly large numbers enrolling in higher
education, researchers have acknowledged that very little is known about the goal
orientation and the impact on students’ academic achievement of each specific
minority group (Wu, 2006).
With an understanding of this importance of goal orientation and self-
efficacy in each specific minority group, this study will examine goal orientation
and self-efficacy along with academic achievement and how they are influenced by
Model Minority Stereotype (MMS), Asian Cultural Values (ACV), and
Acculturation (ACC) in Asian American college students.

14

Purpose and Goal of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the role of Model Minority
Stereotype (MMS), Asian Cultural Values (ACV), and Acculturation (ACC) on
goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian
American college students. The specific research question is as follows: Do
model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation predict goal
orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American
college students?
The remaining chapters have been organized as follows:
Chapter 2 discusses an in-depth analysis into the current research on Asian
Americans, Model Minority Stereotype (MMS), Asian Cultural Values (ACV), and
Acculturation (ACC) including their impact on achievements of Asian American
college students.
Chapter 3 subsequently discusses the methodology used for this study, including
the demographics of the students who participated, instruments used, procedures
for data collection, and the research design used to analyze the data.
Chapter 4 discusses the main results of this study, including correlations between
variables, and answers to the research questions posed.
Chapter 5 discusses a discussion on the results of the study, its limitations, as well
as implications for both researchers and practitioners interested in understanding
the relationship of Model Minority Stereotype (MMS), Asian Cultural Values
15

(ACV), and Acculturation (ACC) to the goal orientation, academic self-efficacy,
and academic achievement in Asian American college students.
16

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The following chapter begins with an overview and background of Asian
Americans in general followed by review of the literature on Model Minority
Stereotype (MMS), Asian Cultural Values (ACV), and Acculturation (ACC), in
relation to achievement in Asian American college students.

Asian Americans
Asian Americans as a group are quite heterogeneous, with more than 20
subgroups, each made uniquely by linguistic, cultural, and socio-demographic
backgrounds and immigration history in the United States (Das, 2010). Erroneous
conclusions can be drawn when researchers treat Asian Americans as a single
category. However, despite differences in cultural norms and values among
different groups of Asian Americans, there are significant similarities among Asian
cultures; most Asian Americans are likely to subscribe to those values. Those
values are the avoidance of shame, collectivism, conformity to norms, deference to
authority, emotional self-control, family recognition through achievement, filial
piety, humility, and hierarchical relationships (Atkinson, Kim & Umemoto, 2001).
In Asian society, family is the primary source of emotional support. Asian
Americans are taught to think of how one’s behavior might affect not only the
17

present family, but the whole family line as well (Das, 2010). Allegiance to one’s
parents (filial piety) is particularly important, and this obligation is to be
maintained even after children are grown and have married. Asians also tend to
adhere to the value of duty, and obligation, whereas Western values emphasize
personal rights and privileges. In the Asian society, mutual obligation is
emphasized in interpersonal relationships. Asian society values hierarchy and
status, whereas Western society values equality and egalitarianism. The Asian
family, for instance, is traditionally patriarchal, with communication and authority
flowing from top to bottom. Furthermore, Asian cultural values emphasize
harmonious interdependence, fitting in, and family hierarchies (Uba, 1994).
Lastly, Asian society values self-control and restraint, whereas Western society
values emotional expressiveness. Asian Americans are seen as being
extraordinarily well adjusted, as demonstrated by high educational levels,
occupational success, and above average earnings. The following section will
focus on the Model Minority Stereotype (MMS) for Asian Americans.

Model Minority Stereotype (MMS)
Asian American MMS
Asian Americans are often portrayed generally in the media and public
discourse as “model minorities” and are often perceived to experience few, if any,
social and psychological problems in their adjustment to life in the United States
18

(Uba, 1994). The theory that Asian Americans academically excel, especially in
the areas of mathematics and science, is the model minority characteristic that has
received the most attention over the years (Lai, Lin, Nagasawa & Wong, 1998;
Chen, 1995). This Asian American Model Minority Stereotype (MMS) theory
contains a noticeable number of characteristics such as hard working,
uncomplaining, persevering, disciplined, conservative, family-oriented, courteous,
patient, clean, Americanized, obedient, high achieving, and law abiding
(Butterfield, 1986).
Societal and familial attitudes may play a prominent role in the
internalization of this stereotype theory (Dembo & Eaton, 1997; Kim & Yu, 1983).
Many individuals expect Asian Americans to demonstrate high academic
performance (Chen, 1995). Asian Americans may internalize the belief that they
are of superior intellect or that they will excel in school through incorporating the
attitudes of society and family members into the constitution of their identity.
However, behind the “model minorities” facade, studies have demonstrated and
continued to reveal that Asian Americans do suffer from a range of mental health
problems (Kim & Yu, 1983). These problems are often masked by cultural or
familial practices (Sue, Sue, Sue & Takeuchi, 1995).
Much of the literature written on the impact of MMS for Asian Americans
have focused on restrictive college quotas or being closed out of affirmative action
programs (Sue, 1988). However, the relationship between psychological
adjustment and having to live up to the model minority stereotype, especially with
19

regards to academic achievement, has largely been ignored by researchers. The
pressure to excel academically originates from others, as well as being self-imposed
due to an internalization process. Such pressure to excel, especially if the person
is unable to meet such expectations, was hypothesized to be related to such feelings
as shame, guilt, anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem (Dembo & Eaton, 1997;
Kim & Yu, 1983; Sue & Sue, 2003; Tang, 2008). Interestingly, of the feelings
mentioned above, the evidence supporting the relationship between the experience
of shame and academic failure was the weakest. This is surprising given the
primacy of shame within Asian cultures (Ha, 1995).
The experience of shame may be closely tied to academic achievement for
Asian Americans (Chang, 1998). Asian Americans may internalize a belief that
they need to be “perfect” in their academic performance. Failing to meet these
expectations may be related to feeling of shame (Kim & Yu, 1983). Few studies
have directly examined the relationship between academic failure and the feeling of
shame among Asian Americans. In addition to shame, other psychological
adjustment problems may be related to academic failure (Zhou, Peverly, Xin,
Huang & Wang, 2003). As mentioned previously, a number of distressful feelings
such as guilt, anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem, may also be related to not
being able to succeed academically. In summary, a number of psychological
adjustment problems may have been related to internalizing the model minority
stereotype and failure to achieve academic success for Asian Americans (Dembo &
Eaton, 1997; Kim & Yu, 1983; Sue & Sue, 2003). Furthermore, feelings of guilt,
20

anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem may also have been related to the pressure
to excel academically (Tang, 2008).

MMS Influence on Achievement of Asian Americans
Researchers found that Asian Americans tended to believe that others see
them as achievement-focused and smart (Lee, 1996). Asian Americans who
scored high on measures that tapped ethnic identity, collectivism, and work ethic
tended to see the model minority label positively. The high educational
achievement of Asian Americans was a significant part of the model minority
stereotype. Extensive evidence had been offered to support this idea. U.S.
Department of Education (2009) indicated that in 2005, 42.1% of Asian Americans
had graduated with a bachelor’s degree or higher compared to 19% for the total
student population. The academic success of Asian Americans was also
evidenced by their tendency to win a disproportionate number of prestigious
competitions and to be admitted into the nation’s most competitive universities.
Also impressive was a summary report of doctorate recipients from U.S.
universities that showed Asian Americans as receiving a larger-than-expected
number of doctoral degrees. Although Asian Americans are made up of less than
4% of the student population, they received between 7% and 28.7% of all doctoral
degrees in various fields during 2009.
However, Lee’s (1996) research revealed that the MMS had consequences
for Asian American students’ well-being and their identities. In addition to the
21

pressure placed on them by their own aspirations and their parents’ expectations,
Asian Americans students also reported that they felt pressure to conform to the
MMS from teachers and peers. A number of Asian American students indicated
that the stereotyping placed pressure on them to succeed by establishing boundaries
for acceptable academic achievement. Lee (1996) also suggested that students
may have feared that they would be rejected or considered unacceptable if they did
not meet these expectations. Due to their efforts to perform up to their own and
others’ expectations for academic achievement and their fears of falling short of
these expectations, many students reported experiencing anxiety, depression,
shame, and embarrassment (Tang, 2008).
Lee (1996) also found differences among the groups with regard to school
achievement. Korean students, both high- and low-achievers, strove to fulfill the
MMS. For Asian Americans, the high-achievers felt pressure to live up to the
standards set up by the stereotyping; anything short of meeting this expectation
would be seen as unacceptable by others. The low-achievers were reluctant to
seek help due to their desire to live up to the MMS and admitting to failure would
also cause their families to be ashamed. In spite of the “model minorities” myth,
which suggested that Asian Americans are successful, some Asian Americans had
adjustment difficulties (Sue & Sue, 2003; Tang, 2008). In summary, in regards to
the impact of the MMS on Asian Americans students’ academic achievement, there
has been much disparity between the positive and negative impact of the MMS for
Asian Americans.
22

Asian Cultural Values (ACV)
ACV Constructs

Given the relatively recent immigration history of Asian Americans, it was
not surprising to discover that many first-generation Asian Americans (i.e., those
born in Asia) strongly adhered to Asian Cultural Values (ACV) (Kim, Atkinson, &
Yang, 1999). Current theories on ACV suggest that recently immigrated first-
generation Asian Americans adhere to these values more strongly than did Asian
Americans who are many generations removed from immigration (Atkinson, Gim,
& Whiteley, 1990).
Asian Americans have long been described as defining themselves in
relation to, rather than as separate from, others (Ho, 1993). Asian Americans’
interpersonal relationships tend to be hierarchical and families are likely to be
extended (Das & Kemp, 1997). Asian Americans are generally socialized to
respect, honor, and to obey their elders, and they are frequently forced to recognize
and appreciate various parental sacrifices. Thus, not only might they maintain
strong family bonds but in keeping with the values of their culture, they may
establish family roles that are highly interdependent, rigidly defined, and strictly
adhered to (Ho, 1993).
Kim, Atkinson, and Yang (1999) attempted to empirically identify ACV,
which led to their development of the Asian Values Scale (AVS). Through their
three-stage research process (i.e., a literature review, a survey of Asian American
23

psychologists, and three focus-group discussions with Asian American psychology
doctoral students), researchers identified six ACV dimensions: 1) collectivism;
2) conformity to the norms; 3) emotional self-control; 4) family recognition
through achievement; 5) filial piety; and 6) humility. Kim et al. (1999) also
provided operational definitions for the above six ACV constructs.
1. Collectivism refers to the importance of putting the needs of one’s group and
of others in general, before one’s own, and of viewing any achievement such
as a family achievement.
2. Conformity to norms represents confirming familial and social expectations,
playing out the role-expectations of one’s family, and being concerned about
not disgracing the family name.
3. Emotional self-control implies an ability to control one’s emotions,
possession of sufficient inner resources to resolve emotional problems, and an
implicit understanding of strong emotions, which means that one does not
necessarily have to express them.
4. Family recognition through achievement refers to not bringing shame upon
the family, which is achieved via avoiding occupational or educational
failures and attaining academic success.
5. Filial piety refers to the importance of obeying parents and of taking care of
aging parents when they are no longer able to care for themselves.
6. Humility refers to not being boastful, but being modest.
24

Reviewing these cultural value dimensions, Kim, Atkinson, and Yang
(1999) noted that all of them are interrelated and that threads of Confucianism and
Buddhism run through each. These philosophical traditions influence the Asian
Americans support for the value of interpersonal harmony, emphasis on
maintaining order, and prioritizing of the group over individual interests. Kim et
al. (1999) found that the behavioral acculturation process occurred at a faster rate
than did values acculturation (as measured by the Asian Value Scale (AVS); Kim et
al., 1999). This finding supported their research hypothesis that during
acculturation (ACC), values changed more slowly than did behaviors, and that the
AVS provided its user with a good representation of the Asian values being worked
upon throughout the ACC process. Kim et al. (1999) also reported good evidence
of content, concurrent, and discriminate validity for the AVS and provided both its
internal and test/retest reliability.

ACV Influence on Achievement of Asian Americans
Traditional Asian values which had been largely derived from the principles
of Confucianism and Buddhism included an emphasis on maintaining harmony in
relationships, group interests over individual interests, fulfilling obligations, respect
for authority figures, and the importance of duties over rights (Uba, 1994). These
values were expressed within a hierarchical system based on such factors as age
and gender. Academic and occupational achievements were also highly valued
within most Asian cultures. Academic accomplishments in Asian cultures were
25

valued in their own right, as well as for their utility in securing occupational
success and high status (Santos, 1993). The strong value given to high
educational accomplishment also promoted a respect for great effort and hard work.
Compared to Caucasian parents, Asian American parents had higher
expectations and standards for their children’s academic performance (Santos,
1993). Asian American parents also emphasized the importance of education and
assisted their children in the pursuit of academic excellence by structuring learning
opportunities outside of the traditional classroom. Most Asian American children
were aware of their parents’ high expectations for their academic achievement and
also associated good performance with their parents’ happiness, honor, and pride
(Uba, 1994; Yao, 1985). Implicitly or explicitly, Asian American parents set high
expectations for their children’s academic performance compared to parents from
other racial groups. The factors of home environments and educational activities
accounted for a significant proportion of the differences in academic achievement
scores between Asian American and other minority students (Peng & Wright,
1994).
Brown, Lent, and Multon (1991) assessed Asian American adolescents’
beliefs regarding education and the likelihood of school success. Results of their
study revealed that the extent to which Asian American students believed that
doing well in school resulted in obtaining the kind of job they wanted was related
to the amount of effort they exerted in school and their actual academic
performance. Additionally, the research study of Brown et al. (1991) indicated
26

that Asian American students who devoted more time to their studies, were more
likely to credit their academic accomplishments to hard work and effort, and were
more likely to indicate that their parents held high standards for their academic
performance compared to adolescents in other racial/ethnic groups.
According to Lee (1994), a number of Asian American participants in his
study reported that their parents had instilled in them the value that educational
achievement was the key to achieving success and social mobility in the United
States. Many Asian American students indicated that their parents and families
had immigrated to the United States in search of educational opportunities for their
children. As a result of these sacrifices, many Asian American students felt a
sense of guilt and obligation that motivated them to succeed academically (Yao,
1985). They also expressed anxiety, guilt, shame, unhappiness, and
dissatisfaction as the result of possibly unrealistic high expectations set by
themselves or others to excel academically. Thus, while these Asian American
students may have appeared successful and accomplished outwardly, they may
have suffered from psychological distress as the result of pressure to succeed (Yao,
1985). Along with Asian cultural values, acculturation (ACC) has also been an
important contextual variable in relation to academic achievement in Asian
American college students. The following section discusses recent research on
ACC theories as well as the influence of ACC on Asian Americans.

27

Acculturation (ACC)
Theories of ACC
Distinction between ACC and enculturation is briefly mentioned in this
section mainly for the purpose of clarification of these terms while being used in
this study. Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits (1936) described Acculturation
(ACC) as “those phenomena that result when groups of individuals sharing
different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes
in the original culture patterns of either or both groups” (149). Herskovits (1948)
referred to enculturation as the process of socialization to the norms of one’s
indigenous culture, including the values, ideas and concepts salient for the culture.
Kim and Abreu (2001) described ACC as consisting of adaptation to the norms of
the dominant group (i.e., European Americans) and enculturation as consisting of
retention of the norms of the indigenous group.
It is important to distinguish between group levels and individual levels of
ACC. Group-level changes occur in social structure, economics, and political
organization, while individual-level changes affect identity, values, and attitudes.
ACC is a complex, long-term process that involves learning, reevaluating, and
coping with both the original and the host cultures (Lum, 1992). Through ACC,
an ethnic group adapts to the cultural demands of the host culture (Berry, 2003;
Kwok, 2004). According to Berry (1980), the immigrant had to accommodate to
a host culture. This accommodation included changes in cultural attitudes, values,
28

degree of cultural exposure, social interactions, language use, and other factors
associated with ethnic identity.
Berry, Poortinga, Segall, and Dasen (1992) defined ACC as one form of
cultural change that resulted from contact with other cultures. In principle, it was
apparent that the changes could occur in either of the groups in question. In
practice, however, one group had a stronger influence than the other in terms of the
cultural contributions that were made (Berry, 1980). Acculturation (ACC) refers
to the process by which individuals and families that move from one culture to
another experience a change in values and behavior upon coming into contact with
the host culture (Mok, 1998). ACC, therefore, is defined essentially as change
occurring as the result of continuous contact between cultural groups. According
to Berry (2006), two fundamental issues in ACC were: 1) immigrants’
maintenance of their heritage culture; and 2) immigrants’ adoption of mainstream
culture. The process of ACC may affect both cultural groups and may affect an
individual’s cultural traits (Mok, 1998).
More specifically, the higher acculturated the individual is to the host
culture, the more the individual adheres to the values, behaviors, and beliefs of the
host culture, whereas low acculturation implies that the individual tends to retain
the values, cognitions, and behaviors of another culture (Kim, O’Neil & Owen,
1996). Furthermore, an individual adopting and integrating the values, beliefs,
and behaviors of both the host culture and ancestral culture is considered bicultural
(Iwamoto & Liu, 2006). However, ACC usually refers to the change within an
29

immigrant or minority ethnic group whose culture progressively emulates that of
the dominant majority group. In this case of immigrant populations, ethnic groups
choose segments of the dominant or contributing culture that coincide with their
primary world view while simultaneously attempting to preserve and maintain
aspects of their traditional culture (Trimble, 2003). Berry (2006) described four
attitudes of ACC namely integration, marginalization, separation, and assimilation.
Generally, integration was believed to be the most successful adaptation and
marginalization was the least successful adaptation, with both separation and
assimilation being moderately successful.
Different theories have addressed ACC and provided models for the process
by which ACC occurs. There have been two contrasting models, commonly
termed uni-dimensional and bi-dimensional (Dere, Kirmayer & Ryder, 2010).
Early models conceptualized ACC as a uni-dimensional process in which
individuals adopted behavioral and cultural attributes of their new host culture,
while they relinquished the corresponding attributes of their native culture
(Fernandez, Kurtines & Szacopznik. 1980). Uni-dimensional models assumed
that with adaptation to the mainstream culture came a loosening of ties to the
heritage culture. Studies of Fernandez, Kurtines and Szacopznik (1980), and
Ramirez (1984) criticized the uni-dimensional model of ACC as limited in its
ability to reflect the “true bi-culturation” of some individuals. The term “true bi-
culturation” was used to refer to individuals who are highly identified with
behavioral and cultural attributes of both their native and host cultures. Thus, the
30

bi-dimensional perspective, which has seen increasing popularity in recent years,
examined ACC in terms of two separate cultural orientations; its core is the
assumption that a person’s relationship towards the heritage culture and the
mainstream culture could vary independently (Berry, 1997).
Because early models of ACC did not reflect the reality that individuals
could identify with both their native and host cultures, researchers called for more
appropriate models to conceptualize the multifaceted nature of the ACC process.
In response, Beauvais and Oetting (1991) developed the orthogonal model of ACC.
According to the orthogonal model of ACC, the process of ACC occurred on two
orthogonal continua, with one continuum representing an individual’s adherence to
values and behaviors associated with the new host culture and the other continuum
representing adherence to values and behaviors associated with the native culture.
Thus, the model appropriately addressed the reality that ACC to the host culture did
not have to come at the expense of adherence to one’s culture of origin. Although
the orthogonal model was an improvement upon past linear models of ACC, its
limitation rested in its conceptualization of ACC in reference to the host culture’s
values and behaviors without a parallel recognition of the potential persistent
influence of individuals’ indigenous cultural values and behaviors (Abreu & Kim,
2001).

31

Adaptation of ACC: Behavioral and Values Acculturation
According to Berry (1980), there were four Acculturation (ACC) adaptation
strategies namely, assimilation, integration, separation, and marginalization, which
described how the individual negotiated the ACC process. In assimilation, the
individual relinquished his or her own cultural identity and made the choice to
solely engage with members of the host society. The opposite of assimilation
occurred with separation, where emphasis was placed upon maintaining his or her
own cultural values, with very nominal contact with members of other groups or
the host society. In integration, the individual found value in retaining contact
with both his or her own cultural heritage and the host culture, participating as an
integral part of the host culture’s social system. However, with marginalization,
the individual devalued and avoided both his or her own cultural heritage and that
of the host culture or society. Marginalization may have occurred when an
individual attempted to cope with the acculturative circumstances or environment,
but it could also have resulted when one was unsuccessful at assimilating into the
dominant society (Berry, 2003).
Berry (1980) proposed that behavioral ACC and values ACC occurred at
varying rates. Behavioral ACC included areas such as language acquisition and
occurred more quickly than values ACC that included areas such as attitudes and
belief systems. The rationale for this difference in rates of behavioral and values
ACC rested in the assertion that individuals who migrated to a different culture had
to acquire that culture’s behaviors in order to maintain economic survival.
32

Furthermore, the process of values ACC to the host culture occurred more slowly
because no extrinsic motivation, such as economic need, existed to force the
adoption of the host culture’s values (Fernandez, Kurtines & Szapocznik, 1980).
This may have been particularly relevant for Asian Americans, who as a group
have been identified as assimilating so successfully into the U.S. culture that they
have been dubbed the “model minorities” (Fong, 2002). Asian Americans’
behavioral ACC to American culture occurred more quickly than values ACC to
American culture. Asian Americans may have adopted American behaviors
relatively quickly; however, they may also have maintained their Asian values
indefinitely (Kwan, Pannu & Sodowsky, 1995).
According to Yang (2006), behavioral adaptation, no matter how
“successful,” was not necessarily indicative of values adaptation. As such,
researchers and clinicians had to look beyond the seemingly positive behavioral
adaptation of the Asian American “model minorities” in order to address the
potential underlying emotional struggles that may have come with a more slowly
changing values system. The exploration of these struggles required more
accurate assessment of values acculturation, rather than reliance on the more
behaviorally-based assessments that had been traditionally used in Asian American
research and practice.

33

ACC Influence on Asian Americans
Lee (1996) indicated that Asians had historically been seen as
“inassimilable minorities.” Some evidence had been found indicating that
Acculturation (ACC) and Asian American students’ adherence to European
American cultural values were associated with general self-efficacy. Kim and
Omizo (2006) examined Asian American college students’ levels of behavioral
ACC to the U.S. cultural norms, as well as their behavioral ACC to Asian cultural
norms, general self-efficacy, cognitive flexibility, collective self-esteem,
acculturative stress, and attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help.
Results of the study revealed that Asian American students’ behavioral ACC to
European American cultural norms was positively related to general self-efficacy,
cognitive flexibility, and the public dimension of collective self-esteem (Kim &
Omizo, 2006). Kim and Omizo (2006) also suggested that these findings may
have indicated that Asian American college students who had a high level of
engagement with European American norms perceived themselves to possess the
increased capability to cope with novel situations, the competence to effectively
handle the demands of such situations, and also believed that others perceived the
Asian American group favorably.
However, ACC was also inversely related to the severity of personal
concerns reported by Asian Americans, possibly because less acculturated Asian
Americans experienced more stress resulting from conflicts between Asian and
American cultures. On the other hand, more acculturated Asian Americans,
34

adopting the values, norms, and lifestyle of the majority culture, experienced less
stress (Atkinson, Gim & Whiteley, 1990). Thus, ACC was also a worthy variable
that may have helped measure the heterogeneity that existed within racial/ethnic
immigrant groups, and how this heterogeneity may have led to different levels of
psychological adjustment (Casas & Ponterotto, 1991). For example, acculturating
toward the host culture may have produced cognitive dissonances, such as deciding
to relinquish old and familiar cultural identities, values or orientations and adopt
new ones, and such dissonances could have been a source of stress, referred to as
Acculturation (ACC) stress (Berry, 1980). Kim (2009) also found that highly
enculturated Asian Americans might have experienced stress related to navigating
the competing demands of their Asian ethnic culture and the dominant European
American culture.
ACC stress refers to the difficulties a person have while adjusting to daily
living tasks in a foreign environment (Berry, 1980). For example, many Asian
American immigrants had to learn a new language, deal with limited employment
opportunities, or face inter-generational cultural conflicts within the family
(Atkinson, Gim & Whiteley, 1990). It was reasonable to assume that these
sources of ACC stresses could have led to psychological problems, such as
depression (Berry, Kim, Minde & Mok, 1987; Ji & Duan, 2006).
The majority of Asian Americans who reside in the United States are first-
or second-generation of Asian Americans or Asians who immigrated to the United
States. Unavoidably, they need to focus on adjusting to living in a culture that is
35

very different from their own. This adjustment process is consuming and
constitutes an integral part of Asian American immigrants’ life. Smith (1991)
stated that a member’s degree of ACC might have been influenced by the quality of
the member’s interactions with other ethnic group members, the member’s position
in the social order, and the willingness of the member to be guided by the ethnic
group’s norms, standards, and goals. Thus, in addition to demographic factors,
cultural values and behaviors should have also been accounted for when assessing a
person’s degree of ACC (Atkinson, Gim & Whiteley, 1990; Ji & Duan, 2006).

Summary
Researchers have acknowledged that very little was known about Model
Minority Stereotype (MMS), Asian Cultural Values (ACV), and Acculturation
(ACC) in relation to the academic achievement of Asian American students.
Asian Americans as a group had attained higher educational levels compared to the
other minority groups as well as to the majority group. As a result, they were
often referred to as the “model minorities” (Chen, 1995; Lai, Lin, Nagasawa &
Wong, 1998). In addition to the MMS, Asian Americans share some common
characteristics such as collectivism, strong familial ties and value of education (Das,
2010). Kim, Atkinson, and Yang (1999) identified ACV and developed the Asian
Values Scale (AVS). Through their research process, they identified six Asian
cultural value dimensions: 1) collectivism; 2) conformity to the norms; 3)
36

emotional self-control; 4) family recognition through achievement; 5) filial piety;
and 6) humility.
These philosophical traditions influenced Asian Americans’ support for the
value of interpersonal harmony, emphasis on maintaining order and prioritizing of
group over individual interests (Kim, Atkinson &Yang, 1999). Asian Americans
with these cultural values actually converged in their expectation to achieve higher
educational levels since academic and occupational achievements were highly
valued within most Asian cultures (Das, 2010). However, previous studies
suggested that while Asian American students may have appeared successful and
accomplished outwardly, they may have been suffering from psychological distress
as the result of pressure to succeed (Yao, 1985).
With an understanding of the heterogeneity of the Asian American
population, ACC was also reviewed as an important variable influencing Asian
Americans students’ academic achievement discussed in this chapter.
Acculturation (ACC) refers to the complex process of adapting to a new cultural
milieu and developing ways to function in the new environment (Chae & Foley,
2010). As in the case of immigrant populations, ethnic groups chose segments of
the dominant culture while attempting to preserve and maintain aspects of their
traditional culture. Early models of ACC were focused on the bipolar aspects of
the construct and posited that individuals were either acculturated or not
acculturated (Fernandez, Kurtines & Szapocznik, 1980). Because early models of
ACC did not reflect the reality that individuals may have identified with both their
37

native and host cultures, researchers developed more multidimensional approaches
to ACC (Berry, 1997).
In terms of influence on Asian Americans, the results of studies have been
mixed (Chae & Foley, 2010). Some studies suggested that more acculturated
individuals reported better psychological adjustment and higher satisfaction with
life (Atkinson, Gim & Whiteley, 1990). Other studies have shown that high levels
of ACC were correlated with psychological distress and depression (Shin, 1994).
Even if a number of different theories have been developed to account for academic
achievement in Asian American college students, research has yielded inconclusive
results, and there has been a lack of empirical research identifying specific
contextual variables associated with their achievement (Sue & Okazaki, 2009).

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to bridge the gap in the current literature by
exploring the role of specific contextual variables such as Model Minority
Stereotype (MMS), Asian Cultural Values (ACV), and Acculturation (ACC) on
academic achievement in Asian American college students. More specifically, the
purpose of this study is to examine the relationship of MMS, ACV, and ACC to
goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian
American college students.

38

Research Questions
The following research questions and hypotheses were posed for this study:
Research Question 1: Do model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and
acculturation predict goal orientation in Asian American college students?
Hypothesis 1a: Model minority stereotype will predict higher levels of goal
orientation.
Hypothesis 1b: Asian cultural values will predict higher levels of goal orientation.
Hypothesis 1c: Acculturation will predict higher levels of goal orientation.
Research Question 2: Do model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and
acculturation predict academic self-efficacy in Asian American college students?
Hypothesis 2a: Model minority stereotype will predict higher levels of academic
self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 2b: Asian cultural values will predict higher levels of academic self-
efficacy.
Hypothesis 2c: Acculturation will predict higher levels of academic self-efficacy.
Research Question 3: Do model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and
acculturation predict academic achievement in Asian American college students?
Hypothesis 3a: Model minority stereotype will predict higher levels of academic
achievement.
Hypothesis 3b: Asian cultural values will predict higher levels of academic
achievement.
39

Hypothesis 3c: Acculturation will predict higher levels of academic achievement.
The next chapter describes the methods used in this study, including
information on the research design, participants, instruments, data collection
procedures, and data analysis.
40

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

This study investigated the influence of Model Minority Stereotype (MMS),
Asian Cultural Values (ACV), as well as Acculturation (ACC), on the goal
orientation, self-efficacy, and academic achievement of Asian American college
students. The following chapter includes information on the participants used for
the study, instruments utilized, procedures for data collection, as well as the
research design.

Participants
A total of 182 Asian American college students, ranging from the age of 18
to 24, participated in this study. They were recruited from a selective private
research university, in Los Angeles, California. A total of 220 Asian American
college students volunteered to participate in this study. Of the 220 survey
responses, 38 were excluded in the study due to incomplete responses or
respondents who answered all the same or within 2-3 minutes. A total of 182
survey responses were used in the final data analyses. Participants in the sample
ranged in age from 18 to 24 years old (means = 19.82 years, standard deviation =
1.59). As shown in Table 1, female undergraduate students comprised 74.3% of
the sample, while male undergraduate students comprised 25.7% of the sample.
41

Also presented are students’ class, generational status, years in the U.S.,
race/ethnicity, and family income for the current study.

Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Student Participants

N Percentage
Sex
Male
Female

47
136

25.7
74.3
Class
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Other

55
35
47
37
9

30.1
19.1
25.7
20.2
4.9
Generational Status
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Above Fourth

58
111
8
3
2

31.9
61.0
4.4
1.6
1.1

Years in the U.S.
Less than 5 years
5 to 10 years
11 to20 years
More than 20 years

18
14
101
50

9.8
7.7
55.2
27.3

Race/Ethnicity
Asian Indian
Cambodian
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Taiwanese
Vietnamese
Pacific Islander
Bi-racial

11
1
76
13
14
36
16
13
1
1

6.0
0.5
41.8
7.1
7.7
19.8
8.8
7.1
0.5
0.5

Family Income
Under $50,000
$50,001 - $100,000
$100,001 - $150,000
Over $150,000

49
68
34
27

27.5
38.2
19.1
15.2

42

Among the participants, the highest percent were freshmen (30.1%),
followed by juniors (25.7%), seniors (20.2%), sophomores (19.1%), and others
(4.9%). A majority of students (61.0%) indicated that they were second-
generation Asian American college students (born in the U.S. with at least one
parent born outside of the U.S.). Only 17.5% students indicated living in the U.S.
for less than 10 years, 55.2% students between 11 years and 20 years, and 27.3%
for more than 20 years.
The largest groups of Asian American ethnicities who participated in the
study were Chinese (41.8%), followed by Korean (19.8%), Taiwanese (8.8%),
Japanese (7.7%), Filipino (7.1%), and Vietnamese (7.1%). When asked to self-
report on the family income, 38.2% of the participants indicated coming from a
family that earned $50,001-$100,000 while 27.5% of the participants indicated
coming from a family that earned under $50,000 per year.
Participants in general, indicated high levels of education for both parents
as indicated in Table 2. Of those reporting their father’s education, 79.1%
indicated that their father had a college degree (or more), while 71.6% indicated
that their mother had a college degree (or more).

43

Table 2. Frequency Distribution of Parental Highest Education Level

Parental Highest Education Level

Jr. High
High School
College
Master’s
Advanced Degree
(Such as M.D., J.D., Ph.D.)
Other

Father Mother
N Percentage N Percentage
8 4.4 11 6.0
26 14.3 33 18.0
69 37.9 82 44.8
48 26.4 26 14.2
27 14.8 23 12.6
4 2.2 8 4.4

Instruments
As shown in Appendix A, students were provided an informed consent form
prior to participating in the survey and were notified that all survey responses
would remain confidential. The survey itself was divided into six sections : 1)
Demographic and Background Information (Appendix B); 2) Model Minority
Stereotype (Appendix C); 3) Asian Cultural Values (Appendix D); 4) Acculturation
(Appendix E); 5) Goal Orientation (Appendix F); and 6) Academic Self-efficacy
(Appendix G). Detailed information on the instruments used for this study is
described below.

Model Minority Stereotype (MMS)
The independent variable of Model Minority Stereotype (MMS) was
measured using the Internalization of the Model Minority Stereotype Scale
(IMMSS) (Chen, 1995). The 29-item scale intended to assess the degree to which
participants believed that others expected them to fulfill the MMS and the degree to
44

which they internalized this stereotype for themselves. It included characteristics
such as “hard work,” “intelligent,” “high achievement,” and “good in math and
science.” The main portion of the instrument consisted of two components that
are combined into a single score. The first component, Social Expectations/
Experiences (16 items), measured how others motivated participants to excel
academically. The second component, Beliefs (13 items), measured participants’
personal internalization of the MMS.
Responses to the items used the five-point Likert type scale from (1) =
rarely at all to (5) = most of the time. The degree of internalization of the MMS
was measured by summing the responses to both the Social Expectations/
Experiences and Beliefs components. Possible scores ranged from 29 to 145, with
a low score indicating a low level of internalization of the model minority
stereotype and a high score indicating the opposite. Internal reliability for the
current study was .88 in total, .85 for Social Expectations/Experiences, and .78 for
Beliefs respectively. Although the measure was developed for Chinese
Americans, the scale should also be appropriate for use for other Asian subgroups
since the MMS applies to Asian Americans in general. Furthermore, the items are
not specific to Chinese culture.

Asian Cultural Values (ACV)
Asian Cultural Values (ACV) was measured for this study using the Asian
American Values Scale-Multidimensional (AAVS-M), developed by Kim, Li, and
45

Ng (2005). The AAVS-M is a 42-item scale reflecting such ACV as collectivism,
conformity to norms, emotional self-control, family recognition through
achievement, filial piety, and humility. The AAVS-M was intended to measure
adherence to ACV. The AAVS-M was a 42-item self-report measure containing
five sub-scales assessing collectivism (7 items, 3 reverse-scored), conformity to
norms (7 items, 1 reverse-scored), emotional self-control (8 items, 3 reverse-
worded), family recognition through achievement (14 items, 2 reverse-worded) and
humility (6 items, 1 reverse-worded). A 7-point Likert type scale (1 = strongly
disagree to 7 = strongly agree) was used to assess the respondent’s degree of
endorsement of each item.
In order to obtain sub-scale scores, appropriate items were reverse-scored
and the scores on all of the items in each sub-scale were summed. The sub-scale
scores were then added together to obtain a total score for the complete measure.
Total scores for the entire instrument ranged from 42 to 294. Total scores on the
sub-scales ranged from 6 to 42 for humility, 7 to 49 for collectivism and conformity
to norms, 8 to 56 for emotional self-control, and 14 to 98 for family recognition
through achievement. Internal reliability for the current study was .90 in total; .54
for collectivism, .74 for conformity to norms, .78 for emotional self-control, .67 for
family recognition through achievement, .65 for filial piety and humility.

46

Acculturation (ACC)
The Asian American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AAMAS)
(Chung, Kim & Abreu, 2004) was developed in response to the lack of instruments
that assessed Acculturation (ACC) and enculturation dimensions as a bi-
dimensional process in Asian Americans, positioning it as a measure that
represented improvements and advances in the assessment of acculturation.
This 15-item measure consisted of three cultural dimension scales of
AAMAS: 1) culture of origin (AAMAS-CO) that measured enculturation to the
individual’s own Asian culture; 2) Asian Americans (AAMAS-AA) that assessed
the individual’s pan-ethnic Asian American culture; and 3) European American
culture (AAMAS-EA). Exploratory factor analyses on each of the three scales
revealed a similar 4-factor structure namely, cultural identity, language, cultural
knowledge, and food consumption. The cultural identity factor included 6 items
that assessed affiliation with people, the language factor included 4 items, cultural
knowledge factor included 3 items, and food consumption factor included 2 items.
For the purpose of this study, only the two scales of AAMAS-CO and
AAMAS-EA were included to assess enculturation of one’s Asian culture and
acculturation to the European American culture. The scales consisted of 15 items
and were rated on a 6-point Likert type scale for each of the three cultural
dimensions to reflect how strongly the participants agreed or disagreed with each of
the items ranging from 1 = not very much to 6 = very much. Internal reliability
47

for the current study for AAMAS-CO, and AAMAS-EA were found to be .89
and .90, respectively.

Goal Orientation
The dependent variable of goal orientation was assessed using “Goal
Orientation scale: Task Preferences” developed by Button, Mathieu, and Zajac
(1996). The 16-item scale was intended to assess the degree to which whether
participants were mastery goal-oriented or performance goal-oriented. The focus
of this measure was on the perceived value or purpose of achievement-related
behavior.
This measure consisted of two eight-item scales. The 8-item scale
measuring mastery-goal orientation included items such as “The opportunity to
learn new things is important to me.” Another 8-item scale measuring
performance-goal orientation included items such as “I feel smart when I do
something without making any mistakes.” For both scales, participants responded
on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly
agree. Internal reliability for the current study for mastery-goal orientation scale
and performance-goal orientation scale were found to be .90 and .87 respectively.

Academic Self-efficacy
To measure academic self-efficacy, Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie
(1991) created the Self-Efficacy for Learning and Performance (SELP) scale of the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Development started
48

in 1986 on the MSLQ and continual revision has occurred on the basis of the
results of statistical analyses including internal reliability coefficient computation,
factor analyses and correlations with academic performance and aptitude measures
(Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1991).
The authors of the questionnaire (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie,
1991) stated that the different scales of the MSLQ may be used together or singly.
Thus, the MSLQ scales of intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsic goal orientation, task
value, control of learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and test anxiety could be used
together or singly. On the MSLQ, self-efficacy included expectancy for success
in a certain task; hence, it referred to students’ self-efficacy and expectancy for
success in the learning of the course material and the overall performance on the
course. The SELP scale of the MSLQ is composed of eight items. For this
scale, individuals respond on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = Strongly
disagree to 7 = Strongly agree. Internal reliability for the current study was .94.

Academic Achievement
The academic achievement is defined as the self-reported current Grade
Point Average (GPA). Participants who obtained Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)
scores and took a number of Advanced Placement (AP) classes were also asked as
supplemental information.

49

Procedure
The investigator for this study contacted the Asian American Student
Services Office at a selective private research university in Southern California to
request that the online survey be sent out via e-mail to Asian American
undergraduate students. All participants were required to complete the study on
line. The survey was hosted online by Qualtrics, an internet survey software
company. Qualtrics provided a URL and server space for the data to be stored
temporarily until administration was completed. A brief description of the survey,
a link to the survey, and a notice on confidentiality were included in the e-mail.
Students participating in the online survey were provided with an informed consent
form notifying them of the purpose of the study, procedures for completion,
potential risks and benefits, confidentiality, and rights as participants. To
maintain confidentiality of the participants, only the primary investigators for this
study were granted access to data. All identifying information from the survey
was kept in a separate location from survey responses. As incentive for
completing the survey, students were given the opportunity to enter a raffle for a
$25 Starbucks gift card. The average time to complete the survey was
approximately 18 minutes.

Data Analysis
All quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS software. Preliminary
analyses were conducted to ascertain reliability of utilized measures as well as
50

obtain basic descriptive statistics. Multiple regression analyses were conducted as
primary analyses to address each research question to examine the predictive
relationship of MMS, ACV, and ACC to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy,
and academic achievement in Asian American college students.
51

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

This chapter presents a comprehensive overview of the results of the study,
including preliminary analyses, and analyses of the research questions.

Preliminary Analyses
Correlations
Pearson product correlation analyses were conducted to examine the
relationships between major variables such as gender, age, years in the United
States, and generational status, along with Model Minority Stereotype (MMS),
Asian Cultural Values (ACV), Acculturation (ACC), goal orientation, academic
self-efficacy, and academic achievement. The means, standard deviations, and
correlations of the measured variables are summarized in Table 3.

52

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5

1. Gender -- -.07 .16* -.01 .04 .13 -.01 -.10 -.11 .20** .09 .05 .18* -.03 .09
2. Age 19.82 1.59 -- -.02 -.24* -.17* -.14 .05 .09 -.20** .01 .08 .10 -.18* -.19* -.24**
3. Years in U.S. 12.86 1.27 -- .45** .07 -.05 -.15* -.46** .41** -.05 -.11 -.11 -.07 -.09 .12
4. Gen Status 1.79 .70 -- -.01 -.17* -.18* -.41** .11 -.01 -.05 -.67 .06 .05 -.04

MMS
5. SEE 3.86 .57 -- .57** .33** .15* .22** .38** .20** .31** .06 .27** .23**
6. BEL 3.8 .54 -- .46** .22** .22** .45** .33** .42** .02 .07 .15
7. ACV 4.3 .64 -- .18* .02 .37** .18* .21** -.08 -.08 -.01

AAMAS
8. CO 4.18 .89 -- -.08 -.00 .25** .15** .00 -.04 -.04
9. EA 4.48 .79 -- .05 .19** .21** .14 .12 .33**

GO
10. .PGO 5.61 .92 -- .24** .27** -.09 .05 .16*
11. .MGO 5.72 .86 -- .50** .15 .10 .13
12. .SE 5.07 1.11 -- .23** .23** .08

ACH
13. GPA 3.47 .35 -- .28** .20**
14. SAT 2080.92 169.53 -- .24**
15. NOFAP 6.24 3.18 ---

Note. All scores are scaled scores. 1. Gender; 2. Age; 3. Years in U.S.=Years in the United States; 4. Gen Status=Generation Status; MMS (Model
Minority Stereotype); 5. SEE = Social Expectations/Experiences; 6. BEL = Beliefs; 7. ACV=Asian Cultural Values; AAMAS (Asian American
Multidimensional Acculturation Scale); 8. CO=Culture of Origin; 9. EA=European American; GO (Goal Orientation); 10. PGO = Performance-Goal
Orientation; 11. MGO = Mastery-goal orientation; 12. SE = Self-efficacy; ACH (Achievement); 13. GPA = Grade Point Average; 14. SAT scores =
Scholastic Aptitude Test scores; 15. NOFAP = Number of Advanced Placement Classes

*P < .05. **p < .01

52

53

For this study, gender was found to be correlated with Grade Point Average
(GPA), designating that female students attained higher GPA than their male
counterparts (r = .18, p = .05). However, gender was not associated with
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores and the number of Advanced Placement
(AP) classes taken. Age of the student was inversely associated with GPA (r = -.18,
p = .05), SAT scores (r = -.19, p = .05), and the number of AP classes taken (r = -
.24, p = .01).
This indicated that younger students performed better. “Years in the U.S.”
was inversely correlated with ACV (r = -.15, p = .05), and one’s culture of origin (r
= -.46, p = .01), and was positively correlated with their European American
culture (r = .41, p = .01). “Generation status” was inversely correlated with Belief
in MMS (r = -.17, p = .05), ACV (r = -.18, p = .05), and one’s culture of origin (r =
-.41, p = .01).
In the analyses on the relationships between MMS and other measured
variables, Social Expectations/Experiences in MMS was positively correlated with
one’s culture of origin (r = .15, p = .05), performance-goal orientation (r = .38, p =
.01) as well as mastery-goal orientation (r = .20, p = .01). With achievement
measures, Social Expectations/Experiences in MMS was positively correlated with
SAT scores (r = .27, p = .01), and the number of AP classes taken (r = .28, p =.01),
but was not associated with achievement measured by GPA. Belief in MMS was
strongly associated with one’s culture of origin (r = .22, p=.01), ACV (r = .46, p
= .01), and performance-goal orientation, (r = .45, p = .01) as well as mastery-goal

54

orientation (r = .33, p = .01). In terms of relationship with academic self-efficacy,
Belief in MMS was also positively correlated (r = .42, p = .01), but was not
associated with academic achievement measured by GPA, SAT scores, and the
number of AP classes taken.
ACV was positively correlated with performance-goal orientation (r = .37, p
= .05), mastery-goal orientation (r = .18, p=.05) and academic self-efficacy (r = .21,
p = .01), but was not associated with academic achievement. In relation to one’s
culture of origin, ACV was also positively correlated (p = .18, p = .05). European
American culture was strongly correlated with mastery-goal orientation, (r = .19, p
= .01), and academic self-efficacy (r = .21, p = .01), but was not associated with
performance-goal orientation. In its relationship to academic achievement,
European American culture was positively correlated with the number of AP
classes taken (r = .33, p = .01), but was not associated with GPA and SAT scores.
Performance-goal orientation was strongly associated with academic self-
efficacy (r = .38, p = .01) and the number of AP classes taken (r = .16, p = .05).
Mastery-goal orientation was strongly correlated with academic self-efficacy, (r =
.50, p = .01). Academic self-efficacy was strongly correlated with academic
achievement measured by GPA (r = .23, p = .01), and SAT scores (r = .23, p = .01),
but was not associated with the number of AP classes taken. In relation among
achievement measures, GPA was associated with SAT scores (r = .28, p = .01), and
the number of AP classes taken, (r = .20, p = .05). SAT scores and the number of
AP classes taken were also associated with each other (r = .24, p = .01).

55

Analyses of Research Questions
Research Question 1
Do model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation predict
goal orientation in Asian American college students?
To determine to what extent Model Minority Stereotype (MMS), Asian
Cultural Values (ACV), and Acculturation (ACC) predicted goal orientation, two
simultaneous multiple regressions were performed using the two MMS domains of
Social Expectations/Experiences and Belief, the total scores of Asian American
Values Scale-Multidimensional (AAVS-M), and the two ACC subscales of Culture
of Origin and European American culture. The criterion variables used for the
analyses were the two subscales of goal orientation — performance-goal
orientation and mastery-goal orientation.

Performance-goal orientation
Results for the performance-goal orientation subscale revealed overall
significance for the prediction model (F(5,183) = 12.962, p < .001) with 13% of the
variance being explained. Social Expectations/Experiences and Belief in MMS,
ACV, and enculturation (Culture of Origin) were all significant predictors of
performance-goal orientation (see Table 4). ACC (European American culture)
was not a significant predictor of one’s performance-goal orientation. Overall,
Asian American students who reported having more Social Expectations/
Experiences and Belief in MMS, and ACV tended to have higher levels of

56

performance-goal orientation. Additionally, students who were more enculturated
to the Culture of Origin also reported higher levels of performance-goal orientation.

Table 4. Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Performance-Goal
Orientation

R
2
F Β SE β p__
Performance GO .270 12.962 .001

MMS
SEE .287 .129 .177 .027
BEL .501 .146 .295 .001

ACV .288 .106 .200 .007

AAMAS
CO-Culture of Origin -.140 .069 -.137 .043
EA-European American -.070 .078 -.060 .371__

Mastery-goal orientation
Results for the mastery-goal orientation subscale revealed overall
significance for the prediction model (F(5,183 )= 7.11, p < .001) with 16.9% of the
variance being explained. Belief in MMS, and both enculturation (Culture of
Origin) and ACC (European American culture) were significant predictors of
mastery-goal orientation (see Table 5). ACV was not a significant predictor of
one’s mastery-goal orientation. Overall, Asian American students who reported
having more Belief in MMS tended to have higher levels of mastery-goal
orientation. Additionally, students who were both enculturated and acculturated
reported higher levels of mastery-goal orientation.

57

Table 5. Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Mastery-Goal
Orientation

R
2
F Β SE β p___
Mastery GO .169 7.111 .001

MMS
SEE -.024 .128 -.016 .854
BEL .389 .144 .247 .008

ACV .041 .105 .031 .697

AAMAS
CO-Culture of Origin .201 .068 .210 .004
EA-European American .172 .078 .159 .028___

Research Question 2
Do model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation predict
academic self-efficacy in Asian American college students?
To determine to what extent MMS, ACV, and ACC predicted academic
self-efficacy, simultaneous multiple regressions was performed using the two MMS
domains of Social Expectations/Experiences and Belief, the total scores of AVS,
and the two ACC subscales of Culture of Origin and European American culture.
The criterion variable used was academic self-efficacy.
Results for academic self-efficacy revealed overall significance for the
prediction model (F(5,183) = 8.556, p < .001) with 19.6% of the variance being
explained. Belief in MMS only was a significant predictor of academic self-
efficacy (see Table 6). Non-significant findings were found for ACV, and both
enculturation (Culture of Origin) and ACC (European American culture). Overall,

58

Asian American students who reported having more belief in MMS tended to have
higher levels of academic self-efficacy.

Table 6. Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Academic
Self-efficacy

R
2
F Β SE β p____
Self-Efficacy .196 8.556 .001
MMS
SEE .148 .164 .076 .368
BEL .656 .185 .319 .000

ACV .036 .134 .021 .787

AAMAS
CO- Culture of Origin .095 .088 .076 .279
EA- European American .174 .099 .124 .082____

Research Question 3
Do model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation predict
academic achievement in Asian American college students?
To determine to what extent MMS, ACV, and ACC predicted academic
achievement, three simultaneous multiple regressions were performed using the
total score of IMMSS, the total score of AAVS-M, and the two ACC subscales of
Culture of Origin and European American culture. The criterion variables used
for the analyses were the three academic achievement measures of current GPA,
SAT scores, and number of AP classes taken.

59

GPA
Results for current GPA revealed no significance for the prediction model
(F(5,183) = 1.267, p > .05) with 3.1% of the variance being explained. Non-
significant findings were found for MMS, ACV, and both enculturation (Culture of
Origin) and ACC (European American culture) in relation to GPA.

SAT scores
Results for SAT scores revealed overall significance for the prediction
model (F(5,183) = 3.926, p < .05) with 10% of the variance being explained. MMS
and ACV were significant predictors of SAT scores (see Table 7). Non-
significant findings were found for both enculturation (Culture of Origin) and ACC
(European American culture). Overall, Asian American students who reported
having more MMS and ACV tended to have higher SAT scores.

Table 7. Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Academic
Achievement - SAT Scores

R
2
F Β SE β p____
SAT .100 3.926 .005
MMS 121.484 34.637 .328 .001
ACV -56.324 25.468 -2.212 .029
AAMAS
CO-Culture of Origin -20.069 17.034 -1.178 .241
EA-European American 22.506 21.078 .087 .287___

60

Number of AP classes taken
Results for the number of AP classes taken revealed overall significance for
the prediction model (F(5,183) = 8.841, p < .001) with 14.5% of the variance being
explained. MMS and ACC (European American culture) only were significant
predictors of number of AP classes taken (see Table 8). ACV and enculturation
(Culture of Origin) were not significant predictors of the number of AP classes
taken. Overall, Asian American students who reported having more MMS tended
to have taken more AP classes. Additionally, students who were acculturated
reported that they had taken more AP classes.

Table 8. Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for Academic
Achievement - Number of AP Classes Taken

R
2
F Β SE β p__
Number of AP Classes .145 8.841 .001
MMS 1.515 .583 .228 .010
ACV -.575 .422 -.114 .175
AAMAS
CO-Culture of Origin -.298 .277 -.081 .282
EA-European American 1.195 .331 .273 .000___

61

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to provide a deeper understanding of the
Model Minority Stereotype (MMS), Asian Cultural Values (ACV), and
Acculturation (ACC) as they relate to academic achievement for Asian American
students. More specifically, this study sought to explore the relationship of MMS,
ACV, and ACC to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and achievement in
Asian American college students. Results of this study suggested that MMS,
ACV, and ACC were indeed important variables in explaining goal orientation and
academic achievement in Asian American college students. However, in relation
to academic self-efficacy, only Belief in MMS was predictive. This chapter
provides the discussion of primary results, the theoretical and applied implications,
the limitations of this study, as well as possible directions for future research.

Discussion of Primary Results
Relationship of MMS, ACV and ACC to Goal Orientation
The hypothesis that MMS, ACV, and ACC would predict higher levels of
goal orientation was supported. For this study, MMS, ACV, and enculturation
(Culture of Origin) were all correlated with performance-goal orientation. In
relation to mastery-goal orientation, Belief in MMS, enculturation (Culture of

62

Origin) as well as ACC (European American culture) were all significant predictors
in this study. In an interesting contrast, ACV was not a significant predictor for
mastery-goal orientation.
These findings continued to validate research by Lee (1994), and Santos
(1993), which suggested that Asian American students felt pressure to live up to the
standards set up by the MMS, and ACV. Results of this study suggested that
implicitly or explicitly, Asian American students who had higher levels of MMS,
and ACV set high expectations for their academic performance compared to other
students. Evidence from this study also suggested that ACV did in fact encourage
students to be performance goal-oriented. However, ACV did not affect mastery-
goal orientation. Ultimately, MMS, and ACV were found to be the most
significant major predictor variables for performance-goal orientation of Asian
American college students in this study. One could speculate that performance-
goal orientation for students could be influenced by the values of MMS and ACV
that emphasized the high educational accomplishment and promoted a respect for
great effort and hard work (Santos, 1993). These findings also lent support for
Tanaka and Yamauchi’s (2004) argument that goal orientation was rooted within
the culture and that cultural context needed to be given more consideration in
academic motivation research.
Furthermore, the findings of this study also supported the hypothesis that
enculturation (Culture of Origin) would be correlated with performance-goal
orientation and mastery-goal orientation. Interestingly, Acculturation (ACC) to

63

European American culture was also found to be a significant predictor for the
mastery-goal orientation of Asian American college students in this study.
Previous research (Kwok, 2004) suggested that Asian American students who held
strong ethnic ties to their culture of origin also tended to have a more positive self-
concept, particularly in regards to their family relationships. It could be
speculated that the strong relationships for students who were both enculturated to
their culture of origin and acculturated to the European American culture may have
contributed to greater goal orientation for this study.
These results continued to support the argument made by Chung, Kim, and
Abreu (2004) that the model of ACC needed to be bi-dimensional in nature, as
students who may have been highly acculturated to the values of European
American culture may also have been simultaneously enculturated to their culture
of origin. This reiterates the importance of including the variable acculturation
when studying Asian American students given the heterogeneity of the population
(Chung, Kim & Abreu, 2004).

Relationship of MMS, ACV and ACC to Academic Self-efficacy
The hypothesis that MMS, ACV, and ACC would predict higher levels
academic self-efficacy was not supported. In this study, ACV and ACC did not
prove to be significant predictors for academic self-efficacy of Asian American
college students. In an interesting contrast, however, it was the Asian American

64

students who described having higher levels of Belief in MMS that significantly
reported higher levels of academic self-efficacy.
It is important to note that the link investigated between ACV and ACC,
and their relationship to the students’ academic self-efficacy was a weak one. One
possible interpretation was that there was a stretch in the connection between ACV
and ACC and the students’ academic self-efficacy due to the multitude of other
factors influencing academic self-efficacy. One could speculate that there were
stronger outside influences other than ACV and ACC that influenced the academic
self-efficacy in Asian American college students.
Taken as a whole, the results of this study continued to support the
assertions made by Dembo and Eaton (1997), that while Asian American students
exhibited higher levels of achievement than did non-Asian American students,
assessment of overall students’ motivational beliefs revealed that Asian American
students reported higher levels of fear of failure and lower levels of self-efficacy
than did their non-Asian American counterparts. Furthermore, the findings of this
study confirmed the notion that Asian American students’ lower self-efficacy was
noteworthy in relation to their higher levels of academic achievement. It could be
speculated Asian American students had higher goals and standards for their
academic performance, and applied greater effort to accomplish their goals.
However, they still felt high levels of fear of failure that could have lowered their
academic self-efficacy.

65

Furthermore, it was hypothesized that ACC would predict higher levels of
academic self-efficacy for Asian American college students. Even though
previous research (Kim & Omizo, 2006) suggested that Asian American students’
behavioral ACC to European American cultural norms was positively related to
general self-efficacy, the results of this study revealed that ACC was not a
significant predictor for academic self-efficacy for Asian American college
students.
One plausible explanation could be given by ACC stress. The majority of
Asian American college students who participated in this study were first- (not
born in the U.S.) or second- (born in the U.S. but at least one parent was not born in
the U.S.) generation of Asian Americans who had immigrated to the U.S.
Unavoidably, they needed to focus on adjusting to living in a culture that was very
different from their original culture. This adjustment process may have caused
their ACC stress (Berry, 1980; Berry, Kim, Minde & Mok, 1987; Ji & Duan, 2006).
It is reasonable to assume that these sources of acculturation stresses could lower
the academic self-efficacy for Asian American college students.
These findings continued to validate research by Berry, Kim, Minde, and
Mok (1987), which suggested that acculturation stress could lead to psychological
problems, such as depression and could have a negative impact on students’
academic self-efficacy. The results of this study added support for the view that
high acculturation may have been linked to lower levels of psychological well-
being (Chae & Foley, 2010). Some studies also have shown that Asian Americans

66

who espoused a bicultural orientation tended to be more psychologically healthy
than those who were only enculturated to their culture of origin or acculturated to
European American culture (Kim, 2009; Ying & Lee, 1999).

Relationship of MMS, ACV and ACC to Academic Achievement
This study ultimately sought to explore if MMS, ACV, and ACC predicted
the academic achievement of Asian American college students. The hypothesis
that MMS, ACV, and ACC would predict higher levels their academic achievement
was supported. Non-significant findings were found for current GPA.
Interestingly, MMS, and ACV were significant predictors for SAT scores as
students who reported having higher levels of MMS, and ACV also reported higher
scores for SAT. MMS and ACC to European American culture were both found
to be significant predictors for the number of AP classes taken,
Several studies have indicated that the outstanding academic performance
of Asian American students might have been attributed to their cultural and family
values (Santos, 1993; Sue & Okazaki, 1995). These researchers suggested that
academic accomplishments in Asian cultures were valued in their own right, as
well as for their utility in securing occupational success and high status (Santos,
1993). However, this study provided a unique opportunity for researchers and
practitioners to gain an understanding of the specific relationship between
contextual variables and actual academic achievement. In an unexpected finding,
no significant findings were found for current GPA. However, this study revealed

67

that MMS and ACV were both significant predictors for SAT scores. It could be
speculated that MMS and ACV were more correlated with test-oriented academic
achievement measurement based on SAT scores than with current GPA and the
number of AP classes taken.
One could speculate that SAT scores could be influenced by the values of
MMS, and ACV placed on family relationship in an Asian collectivist culture that
may have helped facilitate achieving high SAT scores. According to Peng and
Wright (1994), the differences in home environments and educational activities
were significant factors contributing to student academic achievement. Students
whose families emphasized and encouraged learning were more likely to exhibit
high achievement. However, this also continued to support the assertions made
by Wong, Nagasawa, and Lin (1998) that not all cultural elements could be
considered as predictors of educational performance.
Additionally, it was hypothesized that acculturation to European American
culture would predict higher levels of academic achievement. In terms of the
number of AP classes taken, this hypothesis was supported, as students who
reported being more acculturated to the European American culture also reported
having taken more AP classes. These findings continued to support previous
research by Kim and Omizo (2006), which suggested that highly acculturated
Asian Americans possessed the increased capability to cope with novel situations,
and the competence to effectively handle the demands of such situations.

68

Taken as a whole, possibly there are so many factors that differentially
impact the process among MMS, ACV, ACC and academic achievement. It may
be important to conceptualize the process of contextual variables and severity of
academic achievement differently. This continued to support research by Sue and
Okazaki (2009) that explanations for Asian American achievements had to
incorporate heredity, culture, child-rearing practices, educational experiences,
personality, and relative functionalism.

Implications
The results of this study provided important theoretical and practical
implications for researchers and practitioners in education. First of all, the role of
MMS, ACV, and ACC were considered as important factors when developing an
understanding of the variables that influence academic outcomes of Asian
American college students. There were apparently no empirical studies that have
actually been conducted on the roles that MMS, ACV, and ACC had on Asian
American students’ academic achievement, and few studies had examined the
relationship of MMS, ACV, and ACC to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy
and academic achievement in Asian American college students.
While the results of this study continued to show the nuances in the
complex process of explaining the academic achievement for Asian American
college students, the relationship of MMS, ACV, and ACC to their goal orientation

69

was clear. Researchers have acknowledged that very little is known about the
goal orientation and the impact on students’ academic achievement of each specific
minority group, despite the rapid growth of culturally diverse groups in the U.S.
(Wu, 2006). These results opened up new important theoretical implications for
researchers studying goal orientation using MMS, ACV, and ACC with Asian
American students.
The results of this study revealed that MMS, and ACV were the strongest
predictors, not for mastery-goal orientation, but rather for performance-goal
orientation in Asian American college students. Considering the previous
research that mastery- and performance-goal orientation combined to account for
more use of study strategy as well as higher student outcomes (Rebbeca, 2005),
these findings have been alarming for Asian American students as well as parents.
If students are very performance goal-oriented because of the influence of MMS
and ACV, their major tools of learning would be rehearsal and memorization,
which lower their meta-cognitive self-regulation. Middleton and Midgley (1997)
suggested that performance-goal orientation did not significantly predict self-
efficacy or self-regulated learning while mastery-goal orientation positively
predicted academic self-efficacy and reports of the use of self-regulated learning
strategies.
Students with mastery-goal orientation appeared to put more effort and
persistence into their academic work and to use a variety of learning strategies that
encouraged deeper processing of the information. The salience of the mastery

70

goals over performance goals seemed to be in order especially in a college setting
where innovative and independent thinking was crucial. Choice of learning
strategy was very pertinent to educational level as well as educational outcomes
(Valle, Cabanach, Nunez, Gonzalez-Pienda, Rodriguez & Pieniro, 2003).
Individuals in advising and counseling roles should continue to take into
consideration the important contextual variables that could play a role in
understanding Asian American college students. It may be important for advisor
and counselors to examine with students how their various goals and actions make
sense in light of their contextual norms and values as well as the extent to which
these contextual variables could affect their beliefs about their competence in the
pursuit of their goals. The results of this study revealed that ACV did not predict
students’ academic self-efficacy. It is reasonable to assume that ACV played a
negative role in promoting students’ academic self-efficacy because students felt a
lot of pressure to excel, and feared failure if they could not meet their parents’
expectations (Dembo & Eaton, 1997). Assistance could be provided regarding
ways to encourage healthy parent-child relationships, and discussions could
facilitate their academic self-efficacy through continued partnership with both the
parent and child, in hopes of bridging the cultural gaps between parent and child.
While future research needed to be conducted, individual understanding,
improvement, and learning should have been emphasized in a school setting.
With the use of a bi-dimensional acculturation model for this study, results
revealed that both enculturation to one’s culture of origin and acculturation to

71

European American culture had a positive influence on the mastery-goal orientation
of Asian American students. However, results revealed that it was only
enculturation to one’s culture of origin and not acculturation to European American
culture that had an influence on the performance-goal orientation of students who
participated in this study. Future research on academic achievement in Asian
American students should consider including assessments that include
enculturation and acculturation as distinct yet related concepts.

Limitations of the Study
Several limitations were taken into consideration for this study, including
issues of design, internal and external validity, generalizability and instrumentation.
First, with the use of a self-report survey to describe students’ own value, there was
the inherent risk of a social desirability bias. Students may have answered based
on what they believed was socially desirable, feeling uncomfortable providing an
open and honest assessment of their own values. Moreover, the data was entirely
quantitative in nature and relied on forced choice responses by the participants.
Additional research could include more open-ended and exploratory questions that
could provide more in-depth answers about the relation between cultural variables
and academic achievement.
Second, limitation was noted in the ethnic group differences of Asian
Americans for this study. A majority of students for this study came from these

72

ethnic groups: Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Filipino.
This study included participants from Asian American ethnic groups not
represented in the present study, such as Laotian, Thai, and Hmong. With a larger
representation of certain Asian ethnic groups, the result from this study was more
applicable to certain Asian ethnic groups than to others. Caution was taken in
generalizing these results to all Asian American ethnic groups. Future research
may yield to more meaningful results by incorporating a larger number of
participants from other Asian ethnic subgroups.
Third, this study was limited to students who participated in this study, as the
majority of students who participated were students who originated from middle to
upper middle class with highly educated parents. Caution was taken in
generalizing these findings to the general population of Asian Americans who may
come from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
Fourth, there was a limitation in the sex differences of students who
participated in this study. A large majority of survey respondents for this study
were females. Although there were significant correlational differences between
sexes in the preliminary analysis, this study may not have provided an entirely
accurate representation of both sexes, due to the smaller number of males who self-
selected to participate in this study.
Additionally, there was a limitation in the type of instrument used to measure
the students’ academic achievement. They self-reported current GPA, SAT scores,
and the number of AP classes taken. Longitudinal research could be conducted as

73

a way to track students’ academic achievement over several years. Furthermore,
the relationship of MMS, ACV, and ACC to goal orientation, academic self-
efficacy, and academic achievement could be examined through mixed methods.
The use of multiple methodologies could include the combination of self-reports,
interviews, and case studies with the survey method. Thus, the use of quantitative
and qualitative methods would have been preferable, since interview and
observation data could have explained some more facts that were not explained
through self-reported surveys.

Future Research Directions
This study provided some insight into the relationship of MMS, ACV, and
ACC to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in
Asian American college students. The data indicated that MMS, ACV, and ACC
predicted higher levels of goal orientation. However, this study was not able to
support the hypotheses that all of these contextual variables predicted students’
academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement. Researchers should
investigate the potentially new influences of goal orientation and academic self-
efficacy as mediators on the academic achievement of Asian American college
students.
Even if MMS is one of the most representative contextual variables
regarding Asian American college students, caution should also be taken using

74

MMS as one of the contextual variables which could impact on the students’
academic achievement, because MMS is a negative variable. Furthermore, future
studies should include the additional variable of academic achievement such as
subject specific measurement for better understanding how those contextual
variables relate to academic achievement in Asian American students.
Secondly, the preferred research methodology would be a longitudinal
design that utilized a mixed-methods approach. This would allow a long-term
examination of how contextual variables related to Asian American students’
academic achievement over several years. It is important to note that personal and
contextual variables of the student, including parental/familial influences, should be
taken into consideration. Future research should perhaps include a combination of
self-reports, interviews, and case studies to provide an even greater
contextualization of the influence of contextual variables such as MMS, ACV, and
ACC for Asian American students.
Finally, based on the Census of 2010, there are at least 10 subgroups within
the Asian American population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). It would be valuable
to conduct a study about each ethnic subgroup’s differences within the Asian
American population. Future research should perhaps consider segregating the
Asian American groups with various cultures and examining within-group
differences through various statistical analyses.

75

Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship of MMS, ACV,
and ACC to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in
Asian American college students. Results of this study suggested that MMS,
ACV, and ACC were all significant predictors of goal orientation in Asian
American college students. Belief in MMS was found to be a significant predictor
for academic self-efficacy. In relation to academic achievement, MMS, and ACV
were found to be correlated with SAT scores. MMS and ACC to European
American culture were found to be correlated with the number of AP classes taken.
While some studies have investigated the various cultural and familial
influences on the academic achievement of Asian American college students, this
study provided a unique opportunity for researchers and practitioners to gain an
understanding of the specific pattern of relationship of MMS, ACV, and ACC to
goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement. With this
new knowledge, researchers and practitioners can continue to build a stronger
understanding of the role of MMS, ACV, and ACC on academic achievement of
Asian American college students.

76

REFERENCES

Abreu, J.M. & Kim, B.S. (2001). Acculturation measurement: Theory, current
instruments, and future directions. In J.G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L.A.
Suzuki, & C.M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Multicultural Counseling
(2nd ed., pp. 394-424). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Al-Harthy, I.S., Was, C.A., & Isaacson, R.M. (2010). Goals, efficacy, and
metacognitive self-regulation: A path analysis. International Journal of
Education 2(1), 1-20.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation.
Journal of Educational Psychology 84(3), 261-271.
Arenson, K.W. (2007). At Princeton, a Parody Raises Questions of Bias. New
York Times. Retrieved Feb 10, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/
2007/01/23/education/23princeton.html
Atkinson, D.R., Gim, R.H., & Whiteley, S. (1990). Asian-American
acculturation, severity of concerns, and willingness to see a counselor.
Journal of Counseling Psychology 37, 281-285.
Atkinson, D.R., Kim, B.S.K., & Umemoto, D. (2001). Asian cultural values and
counseling process: Current knowledge and directions for future research.
The Counseling Psychologist 29, 570-603.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social
Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American
Psychologist 44, 1175-1184.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychologist 28, 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York:
W.H. Freeman and Co.

77

Bandura, A. & Locke, E. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects
revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 87-99.
Barker, K.L., Dowson, M., & McInerney, D.M. (2002). Performance approach,
performance avoidance and depth of information processing: A fresh look
at relations between students’ academic motivation and cognition.
Educational Psychology 22(5), 571-589.
Beauvais, F. & Oetting, E.R. (1991). Orthogonal cultural identification theory:
The cultural identification of minority adolescents. International Journal
of the Addictions 25, 655-685.
Bell, B.S. & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2002). Goal orientation and ability:
Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge. Journal
of Applied Psychology 87, 497-505.
Berry, J.W. (1980). Social and cultural change. In H.C. Triandis & R.W.
Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology: Social
Psychology 5, 211-279. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Berry, J.W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied
Psychology: An International Review 46, 5-68.
Berry, J.W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K.M. Chun,
P.B. Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in Theory,
Measurement and Applied Research (pp. 17-37). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Berry, J.W. (2006). Acculturation: A conceptual overview. In M.C.
Bornstein & L.R. Cote (Eds.), Acculturation and Parent-child
Relationships: Measurement and Development (pp.13-30). Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates, Publishers.
Berry, J.W., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of
acculturative stress. International Migration Review 21(3), 491-511.
Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y., Segall, M., & Dasen, P. (1992). Cross-cultural
Psychology: Research and Applications. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown S.D., Larkin, K.C., & Lent, R.W. (1989). Self-efficacy as a moderator of
scholastic aptitude and academic performance relationships. Journal of
Vocational Behavior 35, 64-75.

78

Brown, S.D., Lent, R.W.,& Multon, K.D. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy
beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of
Counseling Psychology 38(1), 30-38.
Buchanan, T. & Selmon, N. (2008). Race and gender differences in self-
efficacy: Assessing the role of gender role attitudes and family
background. Sex Roles 58, 822-836.
Butterfield, F. (1986). Why Asians are going to the head of the class. New
York Times, 19-24.
Button, S.B., Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. (1996). Goal orientation in
organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 67(1), 26-48.
Casas, J.M. & Ponterotto, J.G. (1991). Handbook of Racial/Ethnic Minority
Counseling Research. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.
Chae, M.H. & Foley, P.F. (2010). Relationship of ethnic identity, acculturation,
and psychological well-being among Chinese, Japanese, and Korean
Americans. Journal of Counseling and Development 88(4), 466-476.
Chang, E. (1998). Cultural differences, perfectionism, and suicidal risk in a
college population: Does social problem solving still matter? Cognitive
therapy and research 22(3), 237-254.
Chen, J.L. (1995). The internalization of the Model Minority Stereotype as a
Predictor of Depression Among Chinese Americans. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, Los
Angeles.
Chung, R.H.G., Kim, B.S.K., & Abreu, J.M. (2004). Asian American
multidimensional acculturation scale: Development, factor analysis,
reliability and validity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology 10(1), 66-80.
College Board. (2008). College-bound Seniors: 2010 Profile of SAT and
Achievement Test Takers. New York: College Entrance Examination
Board.
Crystal, D. (1989). Asian Americans and the myth of the model minority. The
Journal of Contemporary Social Work (September), 405-413.

79

Das, S. (2010). Educational Attainment: A Comparative Analysis of Asians vs.
Traditional Minorities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Massachusetts, Clark University, Worcester.
Das, A.K. & Kemp, S.F. (1997). Between two worlds: Counseling South
Asian Americans. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development
25, 23-33.
Deemer, E.E., Haase, R.F., Jome, L.M., & Martens, M.P. (2009). Do mastery
approach goals and research outcome expectations mediate the relationship
between the research training environment and research interest? Test of a
social cognitive model. Training and Education in Professional
Psychology 3(4), 250-260.
Dembo, M.H. & Eaton, M.J. (1997). Differences in the motivational beliefs of
Asian American and non-Asian students. Journal of Educational
Psychology 89, 433-440.
Dere, J., Kirmayer, A.G., & Ryder, L.J. (2010). Bidimensional measurement of
acculturation in a multiethnic community sample of first-generation
immigrants. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 42(2), 134-138.
Dweck, C.S.,& Elliot, E.S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 5-12.
Elliott, A.J. & McGregor, H. (2002). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of
approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 76, 628-644.
Fernandez, T., Kurtines, W.M., & Szapocznik. (1980). Acculturation,
biculturalism, and adjustment among Cuban Americans. In A. Padilla
(Ed.), Recent Advances in Acculturation Research: Theory, Models, and
Some New Findings (pp. 139-157). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Fong, T.P. (2002). The Contemporary Asian American Experience: Beyond
the Model Minority. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gore, P.A. (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes:
Two incremental validity studies. Journal of Career Studies 14, 92-115.
Ha, F.I. (1995). Shame in Asian and Western cultures. The American
Behavioral Scientist 38(8), 1114-1131.

80

Harvey, W.B. & Anderson, E.L. (2005). Minorities in Higher Education 2003-
2004: Twenty-first Annual Status Report. American Council on
Education, Washington, DC.
Herskovits, M.J. (1948). Man and His Works: The Science of Cultural
Anthropology. New York: Knopf.
Ho, D.Y.F. (1993). Relational orientation in Asian social psychology. In U.
Kim & J.W. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous Psychologies: Research and
Experience in Cross-cultural Context (pp. 240-259). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Hsieh, P., Sullivan, J.R., & Guerra, N.S. (2007). A closer look at college
students: Self-efficacy and goal orientation. Journal of Advanced
Academics 18(3), 454-474.
Iwamoto, D.K. & Liu, W.M. (2006). Asian American men’s gender role
conflict: The role of Asian values, self-esteem, and psychological distress.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity 7(3), 153-164.
Ji, P. & Duan, C. (2006). The relationship among acculturation, acculturation
stress, and depression for a Korean and a Korean American sample. Asian
Journal of Counseling 13(2), 235-270.
Kim, B. (2009). Acculturation and enculturation of Asian Americans: A
primer. In N. Tewari & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Asian American Psychology:
Current Perspectives (pp. 97-112). New York. NY: Taylor & Francis.
Kim, B.S.K. & Abreu, J.M. (2001). Acculturation measurement: Theory,
current instruments, and future directions. In J.G. Ponterotto, J.M. Casas,
L.A. Suzuki, & C.M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Multicultural
Counseling (2
nd
ed., pp. 394-424). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kim, B.S.K., Atkinson, D.R., & Yang, P.H. (1999). The Asian Values Scale
(AVS): Development, factor analysis, validation, and reliability. Journal
of Counseling Psychology 46, 342-352.
Kim, B.S.K. & Li, L.C., & Ng, G.F. (2005). Asian American Values Scale-
Multidimensional: Development, reliability, and validity. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 11, 187-201.
Kim, E.J., O’Neil, J.M., & Owen, S.V. (1996). Asian-American men’s
acculturation and gender role conflict. Psychological Reports 79, 95-104.

81

Kim, B.S.K. & Omizo, M.M. (2006). Asian and European American cultural
values, collective self-esteem, acculturative stress, cognitive flexibility, and
general self-efficacy among Asian American college students. Journal of
Counseling Psychology 52, 412-419.
Kim, L.I.C. & Yu, K.H. (1983). The growth and development of Korean
American children. In G.J. Powell (Ed.), The Psychological
Development of Minority Group Children (pp. 147-158). New York, NY:
Brunner/Mazel, Inc.
Kwan, K.K., Pannu, R, & Sodowsky, G.R. (1995). Ethnic identity of Asians in
the United States. In J.G. Ponterotto, J.M. Casas, L.A. Suzuki, & C.M.
Alexander (Eds.). Handbook of Multicultural Counseling (pp. 123-154).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kwok, D.C. (2004). The influence of acculturation and self-concept on the
psychological help-seeking attitudes of Asian American college students.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 2004).
Dissertation Abstracts International 65(9), 4987.
Lai, C.F., Lin, T., Nagasawa, R., & Wong, P. (1998). Asian Americans as a
model minority: Self-perceptions and perceptions by other racial groups.
Sociological Perspectives 41(1), 95-118.
Lee, S. (1996). Unraveling the “Model Minority” Stereotype: Listening to
Asian American Youth. New York: Teachers College.
Lee, S.J. (1994). Behind the model minority stereotype: Voices of high and
low achieving Asian American students. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly 25, 413-429.
Locke, E. & Latham, G. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal
setting and task motivation: A 35 year odyssey. American Psychologist
57, 705-717.
Lum, D. (1992). Social Work Practice and People of Color: A Process-Stage
Approach. Belmont, CA: Brookes/Cole Publishing Company.
Maehr, M.L. & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A
schoolwide approach. Educational Psychologist 26, 399-427.
Middleton, M. & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of
ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational
Psychology 89, 710-718.

82

Mok, T.A. (1998). Asian Americans and standards of attractiveness: What’s
in the eye of the beholder? Cultural Diversity and Mental Health 4(1), 1-
18.
Peng, S.S. & Wright, D. (1994). Explanation of academic achievement of Asian
American students. Journal of Educational Research 87(6), 346-352.
Pintrich, P.R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: T he role of goal
orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology 92, 544-555.
Pintrich, P.R. & Schunk, D.H. (2002). Motivation in Education: Theory,
Research, and Applications. Columbus, OH: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W.J. (1991). A Manual
for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ).
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Ramirez, M. (1984). Assessing and understanding biculturalism-
multiculturalism in Mexican American adults. In J.L. Martinez, & R.H.
Mendoza (Eds.), Chicano Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 77-93). New York,
NY: Academic Press, Inc.
Rebbeca, A.M. (2005). College students’ goal orientation and achievement.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 17(1),
27-32.
Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. (1936). Memorandum on the study
of acculturation. American Anthropologist 37, 149-152.
Ryan, R.M. & Brown, K.W. (2005). Legislating competence: The
motivational impact of high stakes testing as an educational reform. In C.
Dweck & W.E. Elliot (Eds.), Handbook of Competence. New York:
Guilford Press, pp. 354-374.
Samura, M.A. (2010). Architecture of Diversity: Dilemmas of Race and Space
for Asian American Students in Higher Education. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, California School of Education, Santa Barbara.
Santos, M.S. (1993). Memory: Social construction and critique. New School
for Social Research 221.
Shin, K. (1994). Psychosocial predictors of depressive symptoms in Korean-
American women in New York city. Women & Health 21, 73-82.

83

Smith, E.J. (1991). Ethnic identity development: Toward the development of
a theory within the context of majority/minority status. Journal of
Counseling and Development 70(1), 181-188.
Smith, M., Duda, J., Allen, J., & Hall, H. (2002). Contemporary measures of
approach and avoidance goal orientations: Similarities and differences.
British Journal of Educational Psychology 72, 155-190.
Sue, S. (1988). Psychotherapeutic services for ethnic minorities: Two decades
of research findings. American Psychologist 43, 301-308.
Sue, S. & Okazaki, S. (1995). The Asian American educational achievement:
A phenomenon in search of an explanation. In D.T. Nakanishi & T.Y.
Nishida (Eds.), The Asian American Educational Experience: A Source
Book for Teachers. New York: Routledge.
Sue, S. & Okazaki, S. (2009). Asian-American educational achievements: A
phenomenon in search of an explanation. Asian American Journal of
Psychology S(1), 45-55.
Sue, D.W. & Sue, D. (2003). Barriers to effective multicultural
counseling/theraphy. In D.W. Sue & D. Sue (Eds.), Counseling the
Culturally Diverse; Theory and Practice (pp. 95-121). New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Sue, S., Sue, D.W., Sue, L., & Takeuchi, D.T. (1995). Psychopathology among
Asian Americans: A model minority? Cultural Diversity and Mental
Health 1(1), 39-51.
Suzuki, B. (2002). Revisiting the model minority stereotype: Implications for
student affairs practice and higher education. New Directions for Student
Services 97, 21-32.
Tanaka, A. & Yamauchi, H. (2004). Cultural self-construal and achievement
goal. Hellenic Journal Psychology 1, 221-237.
Tang, M. (2008). Psychological impacts of “model minority” on Asian
American. In G. Li & L. Wang (Eds.), Model Minority Myth Revisited:
An Interdisciplinary Approach to Demystifying Asian American
Educational Experiences (pp.117-132). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
Trimble, J.E. (2003). Introduction: Social change and acculturation. In K.M.
Chun, P.B. Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in

84

Theory, Measurement, and Applied Research (pp. 3-13). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Uba, L. (1994). Asian Americans: Personality Patterns, Identity, and Mental
Health. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Demographics of the United States. Retrieved
Feb 4, 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics of the_
United_States.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Nations’ Report Card. Retrieved Feb 4,
2011 from http://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2009/
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics. (2005). High School Transcript Study (HSTS);
1990-2005. Retrieved Feb 4, 2011 from http://nationsreportcard.gov/hsts_
2005/ data_hs_gpa_3a_1c.asp
Valle, A., Cabanach, R.G., Nunez, J.C., Gonzalez-Pienda, J., Rodriguez, S., &
Pieniro, I. (2003). Cognitive, motivational, volitional dimension of
learning. Research in Higher Education 44, 557-580.
Vernon, P.E. (1982). The Abilities and Achievements of Orientals in North
America. New York: Academic Press.
Wolter, C., Yu, S., & Pintrich, P. (1996). The relation between goal orientation
and students’ motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning
and Individual Differences 8, 211-238.
Wong, P., Lai, C.F., Nagasawa, R., Lin, T. (1998). Asian Americans as a model
minority: Self-perceptions and perceptions by other racial groups.
Sociological Perspectives 41(1), 95-118.
Wu, F. (2002). Yellow: Race in American Beyond Black and White. New
York: Basic Books.
Wu, P. (2006). The Effects of Goal Orientation, Self-efficacy, and
Cognitive/Metacognitive Self-regulatory Srategy Use on EFL College
Students’ Course Attainment. Unpublished doctor’s thesis. University of
Southern California.
Yang, J.Y. (2006). The Role of Acculturation in Asian Americans’ Attitudes
Towards Domestic Violence and of Male Privilege as a Mediator in Placing
Blame. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. California School of
Professional Psychology, Los Angeles.

85

Yao, E.L. (1985). Adjustment needs of Asian immigrant children. Elementary
School Guidance and Counseling (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. EJ 316396).
Yee, A.H. (1992). Asians as stereotypes and students: Misperceptions that
persist. Educational Psychology Review 4(1), 95-132.
Ying, Y.W. & Lee, P. (1999). The development of ethnic identity in Asian
American adolescents: Status and outcome. American Journal of
Orthopsychiarty 69, 194-208.
Zhou, Z., Peverly, S., Xin, T., Huang, A.S., &Wang, W. (2003). School
adjustment of first-generation Chinese American adolescents. Psychology
in the Schools 40(1), 71-84.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn.
Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 82-91.

86

APPENDIX A
Information Sheet for Non-medical Research

You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Heekyung Cho,
M.A., and Ruth H. Chung, Ph.D., from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California. The results will contribute to the completion of
Heekyung Cho’s doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a possible
participant in this study because you are an Asian American undergraduate student
between 18-24 years old. Your participation is voluntary.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to provide a deeper understanding of the model
minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation as they relate to the
academic achievement for Asian American students. More specifically, the
purpose of this study is to explore the predictive ability that the model minority
stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation may have on the goal
orientation, self-efficacy, and academic achievement of Asian American college
students.

You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do
not understand, before deciding whether or not to participate. Please take as much
time as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss it with
your family or friends.

Completion of this questionnaire will constitute consent to participate in this
research project.

PROCEDURES

You are asked to complete the following online questionnaire that will take about
twenty five to thirty minutes to complete. If you are unable to complete the
questionnaire in one setting, you may save your progress and return to the website
at a later time.

87

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS

There are minimal to no potential negative effects from participating in this study.
However, you can choose not to answer specific questions or to end your
participation without penalty.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR SOCIETY

You will not directly benefit from this research. Results of this study may assist
in the expansion of knowledge regarding the relationship of model minority
stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation to goal orientation, self-
efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American college students.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

By participating in this survey, you are eligible to enter a raffle with a $25
Starbucks gift certificate. In order to participate in the raffle, you will need to
provide your name and e-mail address at the end of the survey, which will be stored
separately from your survey responses. You will be notified at the e-mail address
you provide us, if you are chosen as a raffle winner.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Information obtained in the survey will only be reported in an aggregated form
without any potentially identifiable descriptions connected to individuals. Any
information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission
or as required by law.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. Your responses to
the online survey will be downloaded directly by Heekyung Cho, M.A. Only
members of research team will have access to the data associated with this study.
The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a locked file cabinet and
password protected computer. The data will be stored for three years after the
study has been completed and then destroyed.

88

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL

You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You
may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain
in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if
circumstances arise which warrant doing so.

If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Ruth Chung, Ph.D. at rchung@usc.edu, Heekyung Cho, M.A. at
heekyung@usc.edu, or call or visit (213)740-9323, at the Rossier School of
Education, USC, WPH 802, Los Angeles, CA 90089-4038.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS

You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as
a study participant or your would like to speak with someone independent of the
research team to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the
research staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of
the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213)821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

89

APPENDIX B
Demographic Information

Directions: Please check the items that describe who you are or fill in the
requested information.

1. Age: ______
2. Gender: ____Male ____Female
3. Major: _____________________
4. Class: ______Freshman _______Sophomore ________Junior
______Senior _______Other
5. How many years of education do you have after high school?____________
6. What generation are you?
____1st generation (if you are NOT born in the U.S.)
____2nd generation (if you are born in the U.S. but at least 1 parent is not)
____3rd generation (if at least one grandparent is born in the U.S.)
____4th generation (if at least one great-grandparent is born in the U.S.)
____above 4th generation
7. In what country were you born? ______________
8. What is your racial/ethnic background (check all that apply)?
_____Asian Indian _____Cambodian _____Chinese
_____Filipino _____Hmong _____Japanese
_____Korean _____Laotian _____Taiwanese
_____Vietnamese _____Pacific Islander _____Caucasian/White
_____Black/African _____Latino/Hispanic
______Other(specify)________________
9. How long have you lived in the U.S.? __________years

90

10. What is your annual family income?
________less than $25,000
________$25,001-50,000
________$50,001-75,000
________$75,001-100,000
________$100,001-150,000
________over $150,000
11. What is the highest education level completed by your father?
Note: Please complete this information based on the person who was the most
involved in parenting you as a father whether it be your biological father,
stepfather, grandfather, or some other significant father figure.

______Jr. high ______High school ______College
______Masters ______Advanced degree (Such as M.D., J.D., Ph.D.)

12. What is the highest education level completed by your mother?
Note: Please complete this information based on the person who was the most
involved in parenting you as a mother whether it be your biological mother,
stepmother, grandmother, or some other significant mother figure.

______Jr. high ______High school ______College
______Masters ______Advanced degree (Such as M.D., J.D., Ph.D.)

13. What is your cumulative college GPA? (For example, 2.35 or 3.25) ______
14. What was your SAT score? (Out of 2400) ______________
15. How many AP classes you have taken? _________

91

APPENDIX C
Internalization of Model Minority Stereotype Scale (IMMSS)
[Chen (1995)]

Social Expectations / Experiences

In the following pages, you will find groups of statements. Your task is to read
them carefully and mark down the degrees of the statement which best describe
your school experience. This section of the questionnaire is asking you about
your experiences of academic expectations from others. “Others” could be
characterized by your family, friends, teachers, media, etc. Please circle a number
which describe the degrees of your experiences.

1 = rarely or none of the time
2 = a little
3 = some of the time
4 = good part of the time
5 = most or all of the time

1. To what extent have you been expected
to be good in math and/or science? 1 2 3 4 5

2. To what extent have you been expected
to a career in math and/or science related
fields? 1 2 3 4 5

3. To what extent have you been expected
to pursue a career in math and/or science
related fields? 1 2 3 4 5

4. To what extent have you been expected
to get good grades? 1 2 3 4 5

5. To what extent have you been expected
to get the highest scores or the maximum
possible academic performance? 1 2 3 4 5

92

6. To what extent have you experienced
others perceiving you having NO
academic difficulties? 1 2 3 4 5

7. To what extent have you expected to
put lots of time and efforts in studying? 1 2 3 4 5

8. Among the strengths you have, to what
extent have you been expected to be
intelligent or smart? 1 2 3 4 5

9. To what extent has the importance of
education been emphasized to you? 1 2 3 4 5

10. To what extent have you been expected
to further your education after college? 1 2 3 4 5

11. To what extent have you been expected
to have good education for your future
careers? 1 2 3 4 5

12. To what extent do your parents believe
in making sacrifice for your education? 1 2 3 4 5

13. To what extent have you been expected
to achieve more than students from other
racial groups? 1 2 3 4 5

14. To what extent do you feel that others
demand more from you than your actual
abilities? 1 2 3 4 5

15. To what extent do your parents influence
you in your choice of majors? 1 2 3 4 5

16. To what extent do your parents push
you academically? 1 2 3 4 5

93

Belief

In the following pages, you will find groups of statements. Your task is to read
them carefully and mark down the degrees of the statement which best describe
you. Unlike the previous section, this portion of questionnaire is asking your own
beliefs about schooling, not necessarily what others expect of you. For some of you
on some statement, what others expect of you may or may not be the same as what
you expect of yourself. Your job is not to decide how expectation from others
compared to your own expectation. You are asked to write down a number which
describe the degrees of your belief about your schooling.

1 = rarely or not at all
2 = just a little
3 = some
4 = a good part of
5 = most of all or absolutely

17. To what extent do you want to pursuit
career in math and/or science related
fields? 1 2 3 4 5

18. To what extent do you want to get good
grades? 1 2 3 4 5

19. To what extent do you want to get the
highest scores or the maximum possible
academic performance? 1 2 3 4 5

20. To what extent would you want others
to perceive you having NO academic
problems? 1 2 3 4 5

21. To what extent do you believe in NOT
complaining about your academic
difficulties? 1 2 3 4 5

22. To what extent do you believe in putting
lots of time and efforts in studying? 1 2 3 4 5

23. Among the strengths you have, to
what extent is being intelligent important
to you? 1 2 3 4 5

94

24. To what extent do you want to further
your education after college? 1 2 3 4 5

25. To what extent do you see your
education preparing you for your future
career? 1 2 3 4 5

26. To what extent do you see your academic
performance as one way to please and
honor your parents? 1 2 3 4 5

27. To what extent do you want to achieve
better than students from other racial
groups? 1 2 3 4 5

28. To what extent do you believe in push
yourself academically? 1 2 3 4 5

29. How much do you actually pressure
yourself to achieve academically? 1 2 3 4 5

95

APPENDIX D
Asian American Values Scale-Multidimensional (AAVS-M)
[Kim et al. (2005)]

Directions: Use the scale below to indicate the extent to which you agree with
the value expressed in each statement.

1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Moderately Disagree
3 = Mildly Disagree
4 = Neither Agree or Disagree
5 = Mildly Agree
6 = Moderately Agree
7 = Strongly Agree

1. One should recognize and adhere to the
social expectations, norms and practices. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. The welfare of the group should be put
before that of the individual. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. It is better to show emotions than to
suffer quietly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. One should go as far as one can
academically and professionally on
behalf of one's family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. One should be able to boast about one's
achievement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. One's personal needs should be second
to the needs of the group. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. One should not express strong emotions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. One's academic and occupational
reputation reflects the family's reputation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

96

9. One should be able to draw attention
to one's accomplishments. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. The needs of the community should
supercede those of the individual. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. One should adhere to the values, beliefs
and behaviors that one's society considers
normal and acceptable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. Succeeding occupationally is an important
way of making one's family proud. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. Academic achievement should be highly
valued among family members. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. The group should be less important than
the individual. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. One’s emotional needs are less important
than fulfilling one’s responsibilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. Receiving awards for excellence need
not reflect well on one’s family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. One should achieve academically since
it reflects on one’s family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. One’s educational success is a sign of
personal and familial character. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. One should not sign one’s own praises. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20. One should not act based on emotions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21. One should work hard so that one won’t
be a disappointment to one’s family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22. Making achievements is an important
way to show one’s appreciation for one’s
family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

97

23. One’s efforts should be directed
toward maintaining the well-being of
the group first and the individual second. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24. It is better to hold one’s emotions inside
than to burden others by expressing them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25. One need not blend in with society. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26. Being boastful should not be a sign of
one’s weakness and insecurity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27. Conforming to norms provides order in
the community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28. Conforming to norms provides one with
identity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29. It is more important to behave
appropriately than to act on what one is
feeling. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30. One should not openly talk about one’s
accomplishments. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31. Failing academically brings shame to
one’s family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32. One should be expressive with one’s
feelings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33. Children’s achievements need not bring
honor to their parents. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34. One need not sacrifice oneself for the
benefit of the group. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

35. Openly expressing one’s emotions is a
sign or strength. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

36. One’s achievement and status reflect on
the whole family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

98

37. One need not always consider the needs
of the group first. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

38. It is one’s duty to bring praise through
achievement to one’s family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

39. One should not do something that is
outside of the norm. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

40. Getting into a good school reflects well
on one’s family. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

41. One should be able to brag about one’s
achievements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

42. Conforming to norms is the safest path
to travel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

99

APPENDIX E
Asian American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AAMAS)
[Chung, Kim & Abreu (2004)]

Directions: Use the scale below to answer the following questions. Please
circle the number that best represents your view on each item.

Not very well Somewhat Very well
1 2 3 4 5 6

1. How well do you speak the language of
a. your own Asian culture of origin? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. English? 1 2 3 4 5 6

2. How well do you understand the language of
a. your own Asian culture of origin? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. English? 1 2 3 4 5 6

3. How well do you read and write in the
language of
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. English? 1 2 3 4 5 6

4. How often do you listen to music or look
at movies and magazines from
a. your own Asian culture of origin? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. English? 1 2 3 4 5 6

5. How much do you like the food of
a. your own culture of origin? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6

6. How often do you eat the food of
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6

100

7. How knowledgeable are you about the
history of
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6

8. How knowledgeable are you about the
culture and traditions of
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6

9. How much do you practice the traditions
and keep the holidays of
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6

10. How much do you identify with
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6

11. How much do you feel you have in
common with people from
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6

12. How much do you interact and associate
with people from
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6

13. How much would you like to interact and
associate with people from
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6

14. How proud are you to be part of
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6

15. How negative do you feel about people from
a. your own Asian ethnic group? 1 2 3 4 5 6
b. the White mainstream groups? 1 2 3 4 5 6

101

APPENDIX F
Goal Orientation Scale: Task Preferences
[Button, Mathieu, & Zajac (1996)]

This section of the experiment asks you about your attitudes, thoughts, and
behaviors associated with your preferences for certain types of tasks.

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statements, using the following numbering system:

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Sort of disagree
4 = Unsure
5 = Sort of agree
6 = Agree
7 = Strongly agree

1. I prefer to do things that I can do well
rather than things that I do poorly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. I’m happiest at work when I perform
tasks on which I know that I won’t make
any errors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. The things I enjoy the most are the
things I do the best. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. The opinions others have about how
well I can do certain things are important
to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. I feel smart when I do something without
making any mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. I like to be fairly confident that I can
successfully perform a task before I
attempt it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

102

7. I like to work on tasks that I have done
well on in the past. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. I feel smart when I can do something
better than most other people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. The opportunity to do challenging work
is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. When I fail to complete a difficult task,
I plan to try harder the next time I work
on it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. I prefer to work on tasks that force me to
learn new things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. The opportunity to learn new things is
important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. I do my best when I’m working on a
fairly difficult task. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. I try hard to improve on my past
performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. The opportunity to extend the range of
my abilities is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. When I have difficulty solving a
problem, I enjoy trying different
approaches to see which one will work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

103

APPENDIX G

Self-Efficacy for Learning and Performance (SELP) Scale of
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)
[Pintrich et al. (1991)]

Please circle the number that corresponds to your answer.

not at all very true of me
true of me
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. 1. I believe I will receive an excellent
grade in this class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. I’m certain I can understand the most
difficult material presented in the
readings for the course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. I’m confident I can understand the
basic concepts taught in this course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. I’m confident I can understand the
most complex material presented by
the instructor in this course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. I’m confident I can do an excellent job
on the assignments and tests in this course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. I expect to do well in this class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. I’m certain I can master the skills
being taught in this class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Considering the difficulty of this
course, the teacher, and my skills, I
think I will do well in this class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Help, I need somebody: an examination of the role of model minority myth and goal orientations in Asian American college students' academic help-seeking practices

PDF

The relationship among the nurturance and monitoring dimensions of parenting, academic self-concept, and acculturation, in the academic achievement of Latino college students

PDF

The effect of reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value, and metacognitive self-regulation on the achievement and persistence of community college students enrolled in basic skills reading courses

PDF

Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses

PDF

The relationship between parenting styles, career decision self-efficacy, and career maturity of Asian American college students

PDF

The relationship of gratitude and subjective well-being to self-efficacy and control of learning beliefs among college students

PDF

The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students

PDF

Are acculturation and parenting styles related to academic achievement among Latino students?

PDF

The relationship of ethnicity, gender, acculturation, intergenerational relations, and sense of belonging in the institution to academic success among Asian American undergraduates

PDF

Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college

PDF

The examination of academic self-regulation, academic help-seeking, academic self-efficacy, and student satisfaction of higher education students taking on-campus and online course formats

PDF

Examining the relationship between Latinx community college STEM students’ self-efficacy, social capital, academic engagement and their academic success

PDF

Goal orientation of Latino English language learners: the relationship between students’ engagement, achievement and teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics

PDF

The relationship between student perceptions of parental expectations, utility value, aptitude and English achievement among Asian American high school students

PDF

First-generation, low-income Latina students and cultural capital: a case study for academic advisors

PDF

Academic achievement, same- and cross-ethnic positive peer regard among Asian American and Latinx adolescents

PDF

A response to the model minority thesis: intragroup differences among Asian American community college students in the Los Angeles Community College District

PDF

A quantitative study on southeast Asian and Latino student's perceptions of teachers' expectations and self-efficacy

PDF

The impact of programs, practices, and strategies on student academic performance: a case study

PDF

Exploring the relationship between academic achievement and classroom behavior of Asian American elementary school students

Asset Metadata

Creator Cho, Heekyung (author)

Core Title The relationship of model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American college students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/27/2011

Defense Date 03/08/2011

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Academic Achievement,academic self-efficacy,acculturation,Asian American college students,Asian cultural values,goal orientation,model minority stereotype,OAI-PMH Harvest

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth, H. (committee chair), Andres, Mary (committee member), Stowe, Kathy Huisong (committee member)

Creator Email ashleyhkyung@yahoo.com,heekyung@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3798

Unique identifier UC173741

Identifier etd-Cho-4421 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-461689 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3798 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Cho-4421.pdf

Dmrecord 461689

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Cho, Heekyung

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu