Running head: STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION 1
Asian and non-Asian U. S. college students' interest, employment opportunities, and motivation
Toi Sin Y. Arvidsson, Jeffrey T. Cookston, and Patricia H. Miller
San Francisco State University
Author Note
Toi Sin Y. Arvidsson, Psychology Department, San Francisco State University; Jeffrey T.
Cookston, Psychology Department, San Francisco State University; Patricia H. Miller,
Psychology Department, San Francisco State University.
Toi Sin Y. Arvidsson is now at Department of Human Development, Teachers College,
Columbia University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Toi Sin Arvidsson,
Department of Human Development, Teachers College, Columbia University, NY 10027.
Email-: tya2102@tc.columbia.edu
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
2
Abstract
To investigate links between academic motivation, choice of major, expectations of employment
opportunities, and cultural background, 220 undergraduate students in the U.S. were surveyed
(64 Asians and 156 non-Asians). Asians had significantly lower intrinsic motivation and higher
amotivation than non-Asians but there was no significant difference in GPA. Structural equation
modeling showed that motivation was predicted differently in Asian and non-Asian groups.
Higher parental influence predicted higher amotivation for both groups, but for the Asian
students, it also predicted lower enjoyment and, interestingly, higher intrinsic motivation. Asian
students who chose their majors because of job prospects and non-Asian students who were
influenced by their parents may be vulnerable to higher amotivation. How Asians and nonAsians differ in vulnerability to amotivation will be discussed. Implications for academic
counseling will be provided.
Keywords: major, motivation, parental influence, job, interest,
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
3
Asian and non-Asian U. S. college students' interest, employment opportunities, and motivation
Students who are motivated academically tend to be more optimistic, better adjusted
(Pajares, 2001) and they tend to learn more (Wang & Guthrie, 2004). Undergraduate students
who are highly motivated tend to perceive less stress during their university years and have less
psychological distress (Baker, 2004). For undergraduate students to successfully graduate, they
must undergo years of education at the university, in which they may face new challenges such
as increasing demands on their academic skills. About one-fifth of the undergraduate students do
not complete their degrees (Bradburn & Carroll, 2002). Therefore, understanding which factors
impact students’ academic motivation may help students sustain through the challenges. While
selecting a major in college is an important decision, little is known about how that decision
predicts students’ motivation.
Students across different cultures are motivated differently. For example, students in
Asian cultures are more academically motivated by the fear of failure than non-Asian cultures
(Eaton & Dembo, 1997) while the ability to make personal decision motivates Anglo-American
students more than Asian American students (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999). The current study
examines predictors of academic motivation within Asian and non-Asian cultures in the U.S. to
provide information to help undergraduates stay in school and achieve their degrees.
Academic Motivation
According to the Self-Determination theory, humans have an innate drive to achieve
autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Motivation is defined as the
reasons for behaviors. The theory also postulates that, as humans interact with the environment,
innate needs may be replaced by external pressure and rewards with three resulting categories of
motivation: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. Intrinsic motivation
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
4
represents the most autonomous reasoning and describes behaviors that are driven by pleasure,
positive stimulation, and satisfaction. Extrinsic motivation describes behaviors that are driven by
incentives ranging from having internally defined goals to being compliant with external reward
or punishment, which are less autonomous (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Amotivation describes
behaviors that lack purpose.
Because college students who have the most autonomous types of motivation, i.e. low
level of amotivation and high level of intrinsic motivation, tend to persevere longest (Ratelle,
Guay, Vallerand, Larose, & Senecal, 2007), the current study will examine intrinsic motivation
and amotivation in relation to engagement in academic learning. An intrinsic academic
motivation refers to a person’s eagerness for learning without the presence of other incentives.
Academic amotivation refers to a person’s lack of purpose for engaging in learning.
Interest and Parental Influence for Major Selection
Longitudinal data and case studies of high school students in the U.S. have found that
interest and engagement in a subject predicted continuing motivation in undergraduate programs
(Shernoff & Hoogstra, 2001). Not surprisingly, students who have higher interest in the subject
of an introductory class selected more courses of that subject later in their undergraduate
program (Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, & Elliot, 2002). Thus, it appears that students’ interest in
a subject does not only help students enjoy the classes they are in but also encourages students to
engage in the subject in the long run.
Calkins and Welki (2006) found that, even though most students choose their majors
based on interest, other factors also influence their decisions, such as expected marketability–
ability to find jobs–and parents’ advice. Previous studies found that Asian American students are
more likely to follow parents’ advice than non-Asian American students (Leong & Serafica,
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
5
1995; Tang, 2002). Therefore, we expect that more Asian students than non-Asian students will
choose their majors based on parental influences.
However, little is known about how the factors that influence student’s choice of major
directly predict intrinsic motivation and amotivation. The current study investigates whether the
factors that influence students’ choice of majors differ in the order of importance between the
two cultures.
Perceived Employment Opportunities
University students tend to be concerned about their career in the future and perceive
career advancement as an important reason for why they are in college (Henderson-King &
Smith, 2006). However, students may be less in tune with the actual job markets but are more
influenced by their perceptions of how competitive they are as a job candidate when they
graduate. The current study tries to understand how students’ perception of employment
opportunities after graduation predicts the students’ amotivation.
More strongly than non-Asians in the U.S., Asian Americans seem to perceive academic
success as their only path to a better living standard, therefore Asian American students may be
more likely to be motivated by higher employment opportunities (Sue & Okazaki, 1990). It is
conceivable that perceived employment opportunities would predict less amotivation for Asian
students than non-Asian students.
The Proposed Model
The current study explored how amotivation and intrinsic motivation can be predicted by
student interest, parental influence, and perceived employment opportunities. We also compared
how the paths differ for non-Asians and Asians.
Based on the benefits found about students maintaining their motivation if they engaged
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
6
in subjects of their interest (Shernoff & Hoogstra, 2001; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, & Elliot,
2002), we expected the path from choosing a major based on interest to predict enjoyment,
intrinsic motivation, and GPA positively, and amotivation negatively (see paths a in Figure 1).
Career advancement is an important reason for why students go to college (Henderson-King &
Smith, 2006); therefore, we expected perceived poor employment opportunities to predict
amotivation (see path b). Because parental control was found to predict amotivation in
adolescents (Sharp, Caldwell, Graham, & Ridenour, 2006), we expected choosing a major based
on parental influence to predict amotivation (see path c). On the other hand, enjoyment was
found to be an important element for success (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993);
therefore, we expected enjoyment to predict intrinsic motivation and GPA positively and
amotivation negatively (see paths d). Also, students who had high amotivation tend to score
lower while students who had high intrinsic motivation tend to score higher (Ratelle et al., 2007);
we thus expected amotivation and intrinisic motivation to predict GPA negatively and positively,
respectively (see paths e). Finally, when students are influenced by parents to choose their
majors, we expected them to be less influenced by their interest; therefore, we expected those
two factors to covary (see path f).
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 220 undergraduates in the U.S. (61 male and 159 female; age M =
22.74, SD = 6.00). They were from five different departments: 42.7% Psychology, 16.4%
Science and Engineering, 17.7% Arts and Humanities, 12.7% Health and Human Services, 6.8%
Business, and 3.2% others. Individuals reported their ancestry as 29% Asian, 35% European,
14% Hispanic, 6% African, and 16% other ethnicities. Students were recruited at different times
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
7
of different semesters at elective classes. Participants received extra credit or a raffle drawing of
a $25 gift certificate. The researchers administered an online survey.
Measures
Academic motivation. The Academic Motivation Scale (Vallerand et al., 1992; see
Appendix A), a twenty-eight-item scale, was used to examine why students go to college. The
seven subscales consist of three intrinsic-motivation subscales, three extrinsic-motivation
subscales, and one amotivation subscale. Evaluation of the AMS showed good internal
consistency within the subscales (an average of Cronbach’s  = 0.84 across the seven subscales).
Evaluation of the AMS met validity criteria for measuring intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, and amotivation in previous studies (Fairchild, Horst, Finney, & Barron, 2005).
Other evidence for the construct validity of using AMS for measuring academic motivation is the
correlation found in subscale of AMS and related motivational behaviors, such as a correlation
between the amotivation subscale and concentration in class, r(218) = -.33, p < .05, and
correlations ranging between the three intrinsic motivation subscales and positive emotions in
class, from r(218) = .24 to r(218) = .33, p < .05, (Vallerand et al., 1993). Recent cross-cultural
study showed that the orientations of academic motivation are fundamentally similar between
Chinese students in Hong Kong and students in Australia implying validity for academic
motivation assessment cross-culturally (Martin & Hau, 2010).
Each subscale has four survey items of a 7-point Likert scale with the higher score
representing a stronger endorsement of that particular motivation (Fairchild et al., 2005). A
motivation score was calculated for each category (intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation) by
averaging the score of all items in the subscales within the category. At least 80% of the items in
the category have to be available for a score to be calculated.
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
8
Factors influencing choice of major. A twelve-item scale, adapted from the survey used
by Calkins and Welki (2006), assessed the importance of different factors in choosing the major,
including interest, parental influence, job prospects, and ease of the major (see Appendix B).
To examine the validity of the adapted scale, exploratory factor analysis was used to
explore if items that belong to the same dimension were the intended items for the factors
measuring the influence of choice of major. Principal axis-factoring method was used for
extraction with a varimax rotation. Three items loaded on the interest factor: Item 3, 6, and 11
(an average loading of .74). Two items were loaded on the job-prospects factor: Item 2 and 4 (an
average loading of .72). Four items were loaded on the ease-of-the-major factor: Item 7, 8, 9, and
12 (an average loading of .60). Two items were loaded on the parental-influence factor: Item 1
and 10 (an average loading of .75). Item 5, which was an item from the original survey, was not
included in any of the factors because it did not meet the minimum loading criteria of .40. The
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index of .745 indicated that the sample size was sufficient for a reasonably
reliable factor analysis.
Each factor demonstrated sufficient reliability. The interest factor had an average
correlation of .54 among the items. The items for the job-prospects factor had a correlation
of .60. The items for the ease-of-the-major factor had a Cronbach’s  = 0.71. The items for the
parental-influence factor had a correlation of .58.
Enjoyment of major. A seven-item scale, adapted from the survey used by
Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, and Elliot (2000), measured the level of enjoyment
students had in their majors (see Appendix C; Cronbach’s  = 0.86). Three items were reverse
coded. An enjoyment score was calculated by averaging the score of all items. A higher score
represent higher enjoyment. At least 80% of the items must be available for a score to be
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
9
calculated.
Perceived employment opportunities. A survey, adapted from the survey used by
Harris and Fink (1987), consisting of four survey items (see Appendix D) assessed students’
perceptions of the likelihood of finding a job of satisfactory quality when they graduate
(Cronbach’s  = 0.86).
See Appendix E for demographic questions.
Results
Preliminary Analysis
To understand how the groups differed, we compared the demographics between nonAsian and Asian students. Except for the choice of departments, none of the demographic
variables were significantly different between the two groups.
Age of students and parents’ education levels were not significantly different between
non-Asian and Asian students (see Tables 1 and 2). Percentages of males and females were not
significantly different between non-Asian and Asian students, X2(1, N = 220) = .56, p = .455.
Percentage of students receiving financial aid was not significantly different between non-Asian
and Asian students, X2(1, N = 219) = .56, p = .456. Also, percentage of international students was
not significantly different between non-Asian and Asian students, X2(1, N = 220) = 1.76, p =
.185.
Percentages of students in different department were significantly different between nonAsian and Asian students, X2(5, N = 219) = 12.48, p = .029. For non-Asians, there were 48% in
Psychology, 15% in Science and Engineering, 19% in Arts and Humanities, 12% in Health and
Human Services, 4% in Business, and 2% in others. For Asians, there were 31% in Psychology,
20% in Science and Engineering, 14% in Arts and Humanities, 16% in Health and Human
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
10
Services, 14% in Business, and 5% in others.
Factors influencing choice of major. Interest was the strongest factor and job prospects
was the second strongest factor impacting students’ choice of majors for both groups (see Table
2). A significantly higher percentage of non-Asians than Asians rated interest as important or
very important, X2(1, N = 219) = 4.32, p = .038. A significantly higher percentage of Asians than
non-Asians rated parental influence as important or very important, X2(1, N = 220) = 8.81, p =
.003 (see Figure 2 and Table 3).
Testing The Proposed Model
Structural Equation Modeling was used to estimate the paths of the theoretical model.
The results showed differences in the models that fit the two groups.
The non-Asian model. The theoretical model fit the non-Asian data, X2(9, N = 136) =
16.49, p = .057. Furthermore, we found additional support for the theoretical model when we
compared it with the data-driven model and found consistent results. A data-driven model was
estimated using modification indices by removing all of the paths of a saturated model that did
not significantly improve the fit of the model. A data-driven model with good fit, X2(9, N = 136)
= 10.90, p = .282; CFI = .985, found the same significant paths that were found in the theoretical
model (see Figure 3). Mediation estimates were confirmed with bootstrapped Sobel tests
(Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Interest negatively predicted parental influence in the choice of
major. Selecting a major based on parental influence predicted more amotivation. More
enjoyment mediated higher interest to predict more intrinsic motivation, z = 2.95, p = .003 and
less amotivation, z = -4.00, p < .001. Higher amotivation mediated less enjoyment to predict
lower GPA, z = 2.27, p = .023 and mediated higher parental influence to predict lower GPA, z =
-2.11, p = .035. See Figure 3 for the estimates of the significant paths.
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
11
The Asian model. The theoretical model did not fit the Asian data, X2(9, N = 57) =
44.25, p < .001, thus, we used modification indices to estimate a data-driven model, which fits
the data, X2(6, N = 57) = 4.98, p = .547; CFI = 1. See Figure 4 for the significant paths of the
model. Cross-validation analysis showed that alternative near-equivalent models exist for the
Asian data, however, the current model is chosen because of the nature of the variables. For
example, the direction of the path between parental influence and amotivation should not be
reversed. Unlike non-Asians, perceived higher employment opportunities predicted less
amotivation. Higher employment opportunities also predicted choosing a major based more
strongly on parental influence. Also different from non-Asians, choosing a major based strongly
on parental influence did not predict choosing a major based less strongly on interest. However,
choosing a major based strongly on parental influence predicted more amotivation and less
enjoyment but interestingly, it also predicted more intrinsic motivation. Amotivation did not
predict GPA. Also, while more intrinsic motivation now predicted less amotivation, enjoyment
no longer predict amotivation. On the other hand, enjoyment now only partially mediated
choosing a major based strongly on interest to predict intrinsic motivation, but the mediation was
not significant, z = 1.29, p = .196 sobel test with bootstrap.
Discussion
Selecting a major in college is an important decision, however, little is known about how
that decision predicts students’ motivation. We found three areas of differences between nonAsians and Asians in how motivation is predicted: First, enjoyment mediated interest to predict
intrinsic motivation and amotivation for non-Asians but enjoyment only predicted intrinsic
motivation for Asians. Second, perceived employment opportunities predicted amotivation only
for Asians. Third, higher parental influence predicted more amotivation for both groups but also
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
12
predicted lower enjoyment for Asians while predicting higher intrinsic motivation at the same
time.
Enjoyment as a Mediator
Enjoyment appeared to be more important for non-Asians because interest did not
directly predict better motivation; it is through enjoyment that students benefit from following
their interest to have lower amotivation and higher intrinsic motivation. Enjoyment also
indirectly predicted better GPA through lower amotivation. Such an indirect link is consistent
with the previous findings that students with the lowest amotivation and the highest intrinsic
motivation tend to persevere longer and have higher achievement than those who have higher
amotivation (Ratelle et al., 2007). Our findings also supported previous studies about higher
enjoyment leading to perseverance and higher chance of success (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993).
Studies that examined enjoyment and learning goals found correlations between higher
enjoyment and lower amotivation, and higher enjoyment with learning goals that are more
autonomous (Lee, Sheldon, & Turban, 2003).
On the other hand, for Asian students, enjoyment only predicted intrinsic motivation.
Enjoyment did not predict a higher sense of purpose for Asian students by predicting less
amotivation. Findings from a previous study suggest that Asian’s higher achievement may stem
from their tendency to enjoy learning activities while understanding the long term goal of the
activities (Asakawa & Csikszentmihalyi, 1998). Li and Fischer (2004) explained that Confucian
teaching emphasizes love of learning as a lifelong pursuit. Perhaps, if many of the Asian students
were influenced by the culture of Confucian teaching, the goal of learning may have deeper
meaning that are not directly related to the level of enjoyment students experienced.
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
13
Employment Opportunities
Higher perceived employment opportunities predicted less amotivation for Asians. The
link between perceived employment opportunities and amotivation for Asians may put Asians at
higher risk of an increase of amotivation when external factors cause the job market to
deteriorate. College students who have a moderate to high level of amotivation tend to have the
lowest achievement and persistence (Ratelle et al., 2007). Since almost 80% of the Asians rated
job prospects as an important factor for selecting their major (see Table 3), a large percentage of
students may be vulnerable when the job market changes beyond their control.
Parental Influence
For both non-Asians and Asians, higher parental influence directly predicted higher
amotivation. However, non-Asians may be at higher risk because of two reasons: First, higher
amotivation predicted lower GPA for non-Asians. Second, for non-Asians, when their decisions
are highly influenced by their parents, they are also less likely to follow their interest. The 20%
of non-Asians who chose their majors based highly on parental influence (see Table 3) may
experience lower enjoyment by not choosing a major based on interest.
Parental influence may be a form of parental control that continues to impact students
even as they enter adulthood. For example, more parental interference on how adolescents spend
their free time predicted more amotivation (Sharp et al., 2006). Similar links may continue to
exist even in young adults. Parental control predicted lower self-efficacy and autonomy in career
decision-making (Guay, Senecal, Gauthier, & Fernet, 2003); therefore, the negative effect
predicted by parental influence may be related to the link between the lack of self-efficacy and
lower motivation (Bandura, 1989). By exploring the link between self-efficacy and why students
choose their majors based on parental influence, future research can understand how amotivation
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
14
is predicted by parental influence among college students.
Being influenced by parents may also be an indicator that the students are still developing
their identities and have not yet been able to know what their values and goals are. Previous
study showed that students who are indecisive in making career decision tend to be those who
are in identity moratorium—those who are not able to make commitment and are actively
exploring possibilities and options, and identity diffusion—those who do not think about
exploring their options, and tend to be more indecisive (Guerra & Braungart-Rieker, 1999;
Marcia, 1980). Future study may explore whether students who choose their majors based on
parental influence tend to be indecisive. By exploring students’ maturity level in developing their
identities, it is possible to understand how their understanding of their identities relate to the
reasoning of their decision making process.
As expected, a higher percentage of Asians (40%) chose their majors based highly on
parental influence. Although parental influence predicted higher amotivation, amotivation did
not predict GPA for Asians; parental influence may be less risky for Asians than non-Asians.
Interestingly, parental influence also predicted higher intrinsic motivation for Asians. The sense
of family obligation predicted higher intrinsic motivation regardless of culture (Fuligni, 2001). If
parental influence was internalized as family obligations, it may explain why choosing a major
based on parental influence predicted intrinsic motivation. Ma and Yeh (2005) believed that,
because Asian families tend to hold more collectivistic value, which emphasizes family
involvement in career development; therefore, for Asian students, higher parental influence may
not be an indication of maturity related to self-efficacy in career decision making (Guay et al.,
2003).
However, differed from non-Asians, besides predicting higher amotivation, parental
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
15
influence also directly predicted less enjoyment for Asians. Although these relationships were
not linked to GPA for Asian students, the lack of enjoyment may lead to boredom. While Asian
students seem to be able to achieve academically even with lower enjoyment, boredom may put
their well-being at risk (Hunter & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003).
Limitations and Strength
One of the strengths of the study is the diversity of the participants. Students recruited
from a range of departments allowed the study to see trends for choosing different types of
majors. The non-Asian group also represented a range of ethnicities. At the same time, students
were recruited at different time of the semester and by recruitment methods with different
incentives (extra credit and raffle drawing). Such differences in recruitment allowed the studies
to reach a large range of students who may have different motivation levels.
It is important to note that the findings in this study only provide correlational
information. While students’ decision for choice of majors happened in the past and the
measures of motivation levels are at the time of the study, because we are unable to compare
students’ motivational level in the past, we are unable to find out how students’ motivation
changed because of their decisions. A longitudinal study may be able to address the causality
issue.
Also, Asian Americans consist of a large diversity of cultures from different Asian
countries just as non-Asian cultures also consist of a diversity of sub-cultures. Therefore, the
findings of the study only provide insight into how students within these two groups tend to
behave. To truly understand cultural differences in predicting motivation, the groups that are
compared must be examined more closely by including measures of cultural values that were
found to differ across different countries, such as conformity to norms and collectivism (Kim,
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
16
Yang, Atkinson, Wolfe, & Hong, 2001).
One of the largest challenges faced in this study was the smaller sample size recruited for
the Asian sample. An Asian sample size of 54 may have lacked the power for the study to detect
some of the relationships that were seen among the non-Asian students. Given an effect size
of .15, at least 80 participants are needed to detect any significant effect for the multiple
regression analysis.
Conclusion and Future Directions
Choosing a major is an important decision that undergraduate students make that
potentially impact students’ life in the long run. At the same time, employment opportunities are
concerns that undergraduate students must take into consideration when they make their
decisions, even though they may have little control over how the opportunities change over the
course of their study.
Our findings showed that, even though interest is a strong influence on how students
choose their majors, other factors such as parental influence and perceive employment
opportunities are also important predictors of students’ enjoyment and motivation. As expected,
the stronger the influence from interest, the higher the students’ motivations. On the other hand,
perceived employment opportunities are linked to changes in students’ motivation and the links
are even stronger for Asian students. Since job prospect was the second strongest factor
impacting students’ decision, it raises the question of what sustains those students through the
hardship when employment opportunities drop because of changes in the economies.
Finally, the negative academic experiences predicted by following parental advice to
choose a major, even among the Asian culture, calls for further investigations of what underlie
those predictions. It is possible that following parental advice is an indicator of other
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
17
characteristics of students that make them more vulnerable to have negative academic
experiences. For example, are those students following parental advice because of the lack of
autonomy or because they do not understand what their interests are and therefore cannot decide
for themselves the kind of career they want?
The findings of this study helped identify factors related to students’ decisions that
predicted motivation during their college years and highlighted the importance of making such
decision carefully. University advisors may want to explore with students all of the factors
impacting their choice of majors, taking into account for students’ culture, and discuss the
potential risks. Future research based on the findings of the current study, such as studies that
explore how students’ efficacy is related to their selecting a major and their motivation levels,
may be able to help universities develop better counseling services. As universities are able to
provide better guidance, students may better understand themselves and be able to choose a
major that they will enjoy, especially if it becomes their lifelong career.
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
18
References
Asakawa, K., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1998). The quality of experience of Asian American
adolescents in academic activities: An exploration of educational achievement. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 8(2), 241-262.
Baker, S. R. (2004). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational orientations: Their Role in university
adjustment, stress, well-Being, and subsequent academic performance. Current
Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 23(3), 189-202.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American psychologist, 44(9),
1175-1184.
Bradburn, E., & Carroll, C. D. (2002). Short-term enrollment in postsecondary education:
Student background and institutional differences in reasons for early departure, 19961998. Education Statistics Quarterly, 4.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of
success and failure. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Calkins, L. N., & Welki, A. (2006). Factors that influence choice of major: why some students
never consider economics. International Journal of Social Economics, 33(8), 547-564.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Eaton, M. J., & Dembo, M. H. (1997). Differences in the motivational beliefs of Asian American
and non-Asian students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 433-440.
Fairchild, A. J., Horst, S., Finney, S. J., & Barron, K. E. (2005). Evaluating existing and new
validity evidence for the Academic Motivation Scale. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 30(3), 331-358.
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
19
Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Family obligation and the academic motivation of adolescents from Asian,
Laten American, and European backgrounds New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 94, 61-75.
Guay, F., Senécal, C., Gauthier, L., & Fernet, C. (2003). Predicting career indecision: A selfdetermination theory perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 165-177.
Guerra, A. L. & Braungart-Rieker, J. M., (1999). Predicting career indecision in college students:
The roles of identity formation and parental relationship factors. The Career
Development Quarterly, 47, 255-266.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in
college: a longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of
interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94(3), 562–575.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term
and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance
over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316 –330.
Harris, M. M., & Fink, L. S. (1987). The field study of applicant reactions to employment
opportunities: Does the recruiter make a difference. Personnel Psychology, 40(4), 765784.
Henderson-King, D., & Smith, M. N. (2006). Meanings of education for university students:
Academic motivation and personal values as predictors. Social Psychology of Education,
9(2), 195–221.
Hunter, J. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). The positive psychology of interested adolescents.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32(1), 27-35
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
20
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 349-366.
Lee, F. K., Sheldon, K. M., & Turban, D. B. (2003). Personality and the goal-striving process:
The influence of achievement goal patterns, goal level, and mental focus on performance
and enjoyment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 256-265.
Leong, F. T. L., & Serafica, F. C. (1995). Career development of Asian Americans: A research
area in search of good theory. In F. T. L. Leong (Ed.), Career development and
vocational behavior of racial and ethnic minorities (pp. 67-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Li, J., & Fischer, K. W. (2004). Thought and affect in American and Chinese learners’ beliefs
about learning. Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on
intellectual functioning and development, 385-418.
Ma, P. W. W., & Yeh, C. J. (2005). Factors influencing the career decision status of Chinese
American youths. The Career Development Quarterly, 53(4), 337-347.
Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. Handbook of adolescent psychology, 9.
Martin, A. J., & Hau, K.-T. (2010). Achievement motivation among Chinese and Australian
school students: Assessing differences of kind and differences of degree. International
Journal of testing, 10, 274-294.
Pajares, F. (2001). Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation. The Journal of
Educational Research, 95(1), 27.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects
in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,
36(4), 717-731.
Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senecal, C. (2007). Autonomous,
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
21
controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 734-746.
Sharp, E. H., Caldwell, L. L., Graham, J. W., & Ridenour, T. A. (2006). Individual motivation
and parental influence on adolescents’ experiences of interest in free time: A longitudinal
examination. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(3), 359-372.
Shernoff, D. J., & Hoogstra, L. (2001). Continuing motivation beyond the high school
classroom. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 93, 73–88.
Tang, M. (2002). A comparison of Asian American, Caucasian American, and Chinese college
students: An initial report. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 30(2),
124-134.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., & Brière, N. M. (1992). The Academic Motivation
Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 1003-1017.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F.,
(1993). On the assessment of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education: Evidence
on the concurrent and construct validity of the Academic Motivation Scale. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 53(1), 159-172.
Wang, J., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension
between U.S. and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 162-186.
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
22
Table 1
Statistics of Measured Variables for all students
M
SD
N
GPA
3.25
0.44
197
Age
22.74
6.00
217
Parents Ed.
9.58
3.21
218
Employment
3.77
0.75
220
Enjoyment
4.28
0.70
216
Intrinsic
5.18
1.14
220
Extrinsic
5.75
0.90
220
Amotivation
1.72
1.09
220
Interest
3.60
0.56
219
Parents
1.84
0.86
220
Job Prospects
2.83
0.86
219
Ease
2.48
0.70
218
Note. Parents Ed. = The average of mother and father’s education level. Employment = Perceived
employment opportunities. Enjoyment = enjoyment of the major.
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
23
Table 2
Statistics of Measured Variables for Non-Asian and Asian students
Variables
Non-Asian
Asian
NonAsian
Asian
t-test
M
SD
M
SD
N
N
df
t
p
GPA
3.24
0.43
3.27
0.47
138
59
185
-0.30
.767
Age
23.22
6.37
21.91
4.93
153
64
119.84 1.49
.139
Parents Ed.
9.38
3.02
10.00
3.62
154
64
185
-1.54
.125
Employment
3.83
0.72
3.62
0.81
156
64
185
2.16*
.032
Enjoyment
4.40
0.65
3.97
0.71
154
62
185
3.85** <.001
Motivational beliefs
Intrinsic
5.27
1.15
4.97
1.11
156
64
185
2.32*
.022
Extrinsic
5.76
0.87
5.75
0.97
156
64
185
0.39
.698
Amotivation
1.57
0.98
1.99
1.30
156
64
81.30 -2.24* .028
Factor influencing choice of major
Interest
3.68
.48
3.39
.68
156
63
68.84 3.33** .001
Parents
1.73
.84
2.12
.86
156
64
185 -2.90** .001
Job Prospects 2.77
.87
2.97
.83
155
64
185
-1.07
.285
Ease
.70
2.58
.72
156
62
185
-1.10
.272
2.44
Note. Parents Ed. = The average of mother and father’s education level. Employment = Perceived
employment opportunities. Enjoyment = enjoyment of the major.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
24
Table 3
Comparisons of Percentages of Students Who Rated a Factor as Important or Very
Important
Non-Asian
Asian
X2(df = 1)
N
p
Interest
98.71%
93.65%
4.32*
219
.038
Job Prospects
71.61%
79.69%
1.53
219
.216
Ease
68.89%
70.97%
0.12
218
.731
Parents
19.87%
39.06%
8.81**
220
.003
Factor
*
p < .05.
p < .01.
**
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
25
Figure 1. The proposed path model for predicting motivation with perceived employment
opportunities, choosing a major based on parental influence, and choosing a major based on
interest. Variables e1, e2, and e3 are error terms that account for variability not explained by the
proposed predictors.
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
26
4.00
3.50
3.00
Mean
2.50
2.00
Non-Asian
1.50
Asian
1.00
.50
.00
*
*
Interest
Job
Ease
Parents
Factors Influencing Choice of Major
Figure 2. Mean scores of the factors influencing students’ choice of major between non-Asian
and Asian students in the U.S. Differences between the two groups were significant for interest
and parental influence.
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
Figure 3. The data-driven path model for predicting motivation with perceived employment
opportunities, choosing a major based on parental influence, and choosing a major based on
interest for non-Asian students.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
27
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
Figure 4. The data-driven path model for predicting motivation with perceived employment
opportunities, choosing a major based on parental influence, and choosing a major based on
interest for Asian students.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
28
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
29
Appendix A – Survey of the Academic Motivation Scale (Vallerand, Pelletier, Blais, & Brière,
1992)
ACADEMIC MOTIVATION SCALE (AMS-C 28)
COLLEGE VERSION
Robert J. Vallerand, Luc G. Pelletier, Marc R. Blais, Nathalie M. Brière,
Caroline B. Senécal, Évelyne F. Vallières, 1992-1993
Educational and Psychological Measurement, vols. 52 and 53
WHY DO YOU GO TO COLLEGE ?
Using the scale below, indicate to what extent each of the following items presently corresponds to one of the
reasons why you go to college.
Does not
correspond
at all
1
Corresponds
a little
2
3
Corresponds
moderately
4
Corresponds
a lot
5
Corresponds
exactly
7
6
WHY DO YOU GO TO COLLEGE ?
1. Because with only a high-school degree I would not
find a high-paying job later on.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2. Because I experience pleasure and satisfaction
while learning new things.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3. Because I think that a college education will help me
better prepare for the career I have chosen.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4. For the intense feelings I experience when I am
communicating my own ideas to others.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5. Honestly, I don't know; I really feel that I am wasting
my time in school.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6. For the pleasure I experience while surpassing
myself in my studies.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7. To prove to myself that I am capable of completing my
college degree.
8. In order to obtain a more prestigious job later on.
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
9. For the pleasure I experience when I discover
new things never seen before.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10. Because eventually it will enable me to enter the
job market in a field that I like.
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
11. For the pleasure that I experience when I read
interesting authors.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
12. I once had good reasons for going to college;
however, now I wonder whether I should continue.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
13. For the pleasure that I experience while I am surpassing
myself in one of my personal accomplishments.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
14. Because of the fact that when I succeed in college
I feel important.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
15. Because I want to have "the good life" later on.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
16. For the pleasure that I experience in broadening my
knowledge about subjects which appeal to me.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
17. Because this will help me make a better choice
regarding my career orientation.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
18. For the pleasure that I experience when I feel completely
absorbed by what certain authors have written.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
19. I can't see why I go to college and frankly,
I couldn't care less.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
20. For the satisfaction I feel when I am in the process of
accomplishing difficult academic activities.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
21. To show myself that I am an intelligent person.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
22. In order to have a better salary later on.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
23. Because my studies allow me to continue to learn about
many things that interest me.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
24. Because I believe that a few additional years of
education will improve my competence as a worker.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
25. For the "high" feeling that I experience while reading
about various interesting subjects.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
26. I don't know; I can't understand what I am
doing in school.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
27. Because college allows me to experience a
personal satisfaction in my quest for excellence
in my studies.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
28. Because I want to show myself that I can succeed
in my studies.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
© Robert J. Vallerand, Luc G. Pelletier, Marc R. Blais, Nathalie M. Brière,
Caroline B. Senécal, Évelyne F. Vallières, 1992
30
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
# 2, 9, 16, 23
Intrinsic motivation - to know
# 6, 13, 20, 27
Intrinsic motivation - toward accomplishment
# 4, 11, 18, 25
Intrinsic motivation - to experience stimulation
# 3, 10, 17, 24
Extrinsic motivation - identified
# 7, 14, 21, 28
Extrinsic motivation - introjected
# 1, 8, 15, 22
Extrinsic motivation - external regulation
# 5, 12, 19, 26
Amotivation
31
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
32
Appendix B – Survey Items of Factors Influencing the Choice of Major
For each of the factors listed below, indicate how important the factor was to you in influencing
your choice of undergraduate major.
not at all important
or irrelevant
1
Somewhat
important
2
Important
very important
3
4
1. Parental encouragement towards the major
2. Expected marketability after graduation
3. Expected enjoyment in the courses of the subject
4. Expected income after graduation
5. Preparation for graduate school
6. Interest in the subject
7. My tendency to do well in courses related to the subject
8. The ease of the course work in the department
9. The difficulty of the course work in the department
10. Parental pressure towards the major
11. Expected enjoyment from working in the careers related to the subject of my major
12 Ease of being accepted into the department of the major based on my grades
13. If there are other factors that highly influenced you to choose your major, please specified
below:
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
Appendix C – Survey Items for Enjoyment of the Major
Using the scale below, indicate how each of the falling statements applies to you.
strongly disagree
1
disagree
2
neutral
3
agree
4
strongly agree
5
1. I think what we learn in the major is interesting.
2. I am enjoying classes related to my major very much.
3. I think the field of my major is very interesting.
4. The classes related to my major have been a waste of time.*
5. I am glad I am in this major.
6. The classes of my majors really seem to drag on forever.*
7. I don’t like the lectures related to my majors very much.*
8. About the classes in your major, what are the things that you enjoy the most?
33
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
34
Appendix D – Survey of Perceived Employment Opportunities After Graduation
For each of the following, in your opinion, how likely will you be able to find a job that provides
the followings?
very unlikely
1
unlikely
2
neutral
3
1. Opportunities for rapid advancement
2. Good salary
3. Job security
4. Good career paths
likely
4
very likely
5
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
Appendix E – Questions for Demographic Information
Demographic information:
1. Your sex: ______
2. Your age: ______
3. Your ethnic origin:
4. What is your declared major?
5. Was the current major your first choice of major?
Yes
No
If not, what was your first choice?
6. What is your current GPA: ______
Question 7 for U.S. students only:
7. What were your SAT scores?
Verbal Score:
Quantitative Score:
Question 7 for Hong Kong students only:
7. What were the A-level scores of your best subjects including Chinese and English?
Subject:
Score:
Subject:
Score:
English Score:
Chinese Score:
8. When did you enter the university?
Year
Semester
9. When do you expect to graduate?
Year
Semester
10. Which year of study are you in?
35
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
36
11. Which university are you currently enrolled in?
12. Are you an international student?
Yes
No
If yes, where were you from?
13. Do you receive financial aid?
Yes
No
14. What is your mother’s education level?
1 – Grade 1-6
9 – Vocational or technical school graduate
2 – Grade 7
10 – Associate degree
3 – Grade 8
11 – College degree (BS/BA)
4 – Grade 9
12 – Some advanced work, but no graduate degree
5 – Grade 10
13 – MS/MA (Master's degree)
6 – Grade 11
14 – Some work toward doctorate or advanced degree
7 – High school graduate
15 – MD, JD, DO, DDS or Ph.D. (etc.)
8 – Some college/vocational 99 – Don’t know
or technical school
15. What is your father’s education level?
1 – Grade 1-6
9 – Vocational or technical school graduate
2 – Grade 7
10 – Associate degree
3 – Grade 8
11 – College degree (BS/BA)
4 – Grade 9
12 – Some advanced work, but no graduate degree
STUDENTS' INTEREST, JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND MOTIVATION
37
5 – Grade 10
13 – MS/MA (Master's degree)
6 – Grade 11
14 – Some work toward doctorate or advanced degree
7 – High school graduate
15 – MD, JD, DO, DDS or Ph.D. (etc.)
8 – Some college/vocational
99 – Don’t know
or technical school