Family socioeconomic status,subjective social status,and achievement motivation among Chinese college freshmen: A latent growth modeling approach

Abstract

This study’s objective was to examine direct and indirect relationships among family socioeconomic status, subjective social status, and achievement motivation within the first 3 months after college freshmen enrollment in China. A longitudinal dataset was collected over a 3-month period at four measurement points with 4-week intervals. A cluster sample of 1,983 college freshmen from the eastern, central, and western economic regions of China was surveyed. Latent growth modeling was conducted. The results indicated that achievement motivation decreased over time and was positively related to a decline in subjective social status. Mediation analyses demonstrated that, after controlling for sex and economic region, family socioeconomic status predicted the initial level of achievement motivation directly and indirectly through the initial level of subjective social status, and notably, the directions of these effects were opposite. Further, family socioeconomic status also significantly predicted the rate of change in achievement motivation indirectly through the initial level of subjective social status. These results highlight the longitudinal relationship between family socioeconomic status and achievement motivation via different pathways and have implications for improving college freshmen’s achievement motivation.

Keywords

Achievement motivation college freshmen family socioeconomic status latent growth modeling subjective social status

Achievement motivation typically involves competition with a standard of excellence or people’s desire to set and realize goals for themselves (Brunstein & Heckhausen, 2010). Empirical evidence suggests that achievement motivation is central to many aspects of school life, including school attendance and academic performance (Cosgrove et al., 2018; Tucker-Drob et al., 2016). Furthermore, achievement motivation in the first semester of college can play a critically important role in setting a student’s future trajectory, in terms of educational and occupational attainment (Dresel & Grassinger, 2013). Given the importance of achievement motivation in shaping learning and performance, it is important to investigate the factors that contribute to achievement motivation.

Although considerable research has demonstrated that contextual factors, such as family socioeconomic status (SES), play important roles in predicting achievement motivation (Wang & Eccles, 2013), the bulk of the research has primarily utilized cross-sectional data, and relatively little research has focused on the transition to college. The first semester of college is a typical transition period, accompanied by significant changes in academic and social environments; new social reference groups are subsequently formed (Yang & Brown, 2016). Although a few longitudinal studies have measured achievement motivation across several time points (Dresel & Grassinger, 2013), little is known about the growth trajectory of achievement motivation. In addition, studies have shown that sociocultural and contextual factors, such as collectivism and individualism, influence patterns and changes in student motivation. Specifically, due to China’s Confucian heritage, achievement motivation is highly valued in Chinese culture, which is a typically collectivistic culture (Guo et al., 2015). However, the extant research on achievement motivation is mainly restricted to the West’s individualistic culture. Thus, little is known about whether and how achievement motivation changes in various environments and the factors related to changes in achievement motivation within an Eastern collectivist culture. The present research aims to investigate the trajectory of achievement motivation and identify the predictors during college transition within Chinese culture.

Family socioeconomic status (SES) and achievement motivation

Family SES measures one’s parents’ position in the social hierarchy based on their home possessions, occupational prestige, and educational attainment (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). Thus, family SES can be effectively used as a proxy for families’ experiences of disadvantage. Previous research has shown that economic hardship undermines individual development, including achievement motivation (Szepsenwol et al., 2019). Achievement motivation was originally regarded as a stable personality trait (Allport, 1953). With the development of cognitive theories, the focus has shifted toward a developmental perspective that positions achievement motivation as a more flexible cognitive style (Weiner, 1985).

The expectancy-value model, one of the major frameworks of achievement motivation developed by Eccles et al. (1983), focuses on the social psychological reasons for people’s choices in achievement settings. The model can inform our understanding of the relationship between family SES and achievement motivation and posits that one’s previous achievement-related experiences and the overall cultural milieu (e.g., cultural stereotypes of subject matter and family SES) directly influence socializers’ behaviors and beliefs and individuals’ own beliefs. These beliefs in turn influence individuals’ perceptions of parents’ and teachers’ attitudes and expectations, further affecting self-perceived ability and more general personal beliefs within a specific academic domain. In turn, the development of subjective task values and expectations of academic success are affected. These motivational beliefs then influence achievement-related performance. According to the expectancy-value model, culture and family SES play an important role in shaping achievement motivation.

The majority of research from various cultures has confirmed that family SES is positively correlated with achievement motivation (Guo et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2020). However, little is known about the change trajectory in achievement motivation during college transition or whether family SES is associated with changes in achievement motivation. With regard to the trajectory of achievement motivation, it is reasonable to believe, however, that achievement motivation is likely to decrease during this period. Transitioning to a new environment can pose risks to students’ achievement motivation. Research from various cultures has demonstrated that achievement motivation declines are especially pronounced during educational transitions, such as the transition from elementary to middle or secondary school environments (Schneider et al., 2008; Wo et al., 2001). Several longitudinal studies in Western countries, conducted with two assessments (at the beginning and end of the first semester), have found that college freshmen experience a decrease in achievement motivation over the first semester (Dresel & Grassinger, 2013; Huie et al., 2014).

In terms of the relationship between family SES and changes in achievement motivation, according to the expectancy-value model, achievement motivation cannot be separated from the social context in which it develops. Confronted with transition-related challenges, family SES can be viewed as a stress-resistance resource, as it increases the number and kind of coping options and one’s access to assistance (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Higher family SES brings greater access to the resources needed to attain desired social profits. That is, students from higher SES backgrounds continue to have advantages in developing achievement motivation during transition periods. Walpole (2003) found that low-SES students have lower achievement motivation than their high-SES peers 9 years after college entry, indicating that family SES was related to achievement motivation in both the short and long term.

Subjective social status as a mediator between family SES and achievement motivation

Several variables, such as financial pressures, social and cultural resources, parental involvement, stressful events, and subjective social status (Guan, 2015; Wilbur & Roscigno, 2016), have been identified as potential mediators between family SES and achievement motivation. Among these variables, subjective social status, a measure of one’s own perceived relative social standing, deserves special attention during school transitions. Subjective social status is sensitive to the reference group used in social comparisons. That is, subjective social status is especially likely to change as freshmen experience more peer diversity, and new social groups gradually form during the college transition. Previous longitudinal research in China has shown that, on average, subjective social status among college freshmen declines significantly during the transition period (Cheng et al., 2016).

Family SES can be expected to form the basis of subjective social status. When college freshmen assess their status in new reference groups, they think more readily in terms of family SES (Singh-Manoux et al., 2003). Research has indicated that family SES and subjective social status are distinct concepts but interrelated (Roy et al., 2019). Thus, freshmen with higher family SES who have more economic and cultural capital also have greater advantages in social comparison. As a result, they may experience a smaller decrease in subjective social status than lower family SES freshmen.

Subjective social status represents a psychological process. When people perceive themselves as low in a social hierarchy, they are more likely to feel worse about themselves and their lives (Wolff et al., 2010). Following the expectancy-value model, motivation beliefs, such as expectancies and values, are shaped over time by ability beliefs (Eccles et al., 1983). Similarly, the integrative, culturally sensitive framework of identity-based motivation (IBM; Oyserman, 2009)—which focuses on how environmental features influence identities and the processes by which identities indeed matter for motivation—asserts that which personal or social identities come to mind depends on context, and people are more motivated to pursue goals when they perceive these goals to be congruent with their relevant identities. The IBM model suggests that, if subjective social status is indeed linked to a person’s sense of self, it should influence motivation. Together, these two theories suggest that subjective social status appears to positively shape achievement motivation.

Cross-sectional empirical research has also revealed that college students in China with higher subjective social status are more likely to express a high level of self-efficacy, which directly and positively predicts achievement motivation (Guan, 2015). Although we have little empirical evidence to show that changes in subjective social status are associated with changes in achievement motivation, the above arguments can be further extended to support a “change” perspective in this study.

Considering all the aforementioned theories and literature jointly, this study proposes that subjective social status plays a mediating role in the association between family SES and achievement motivation.

The current study

The present study aims to examine the direct and indirect relationships among family SES, subjective social status and achievement motivation among Chinese college freshmen using longitudinal data. Although little empirical work on such longitudinal mediation processes has been conducted, drawing from the aforementioned theoretical perspectives and literature, we propose that, during the college transition,

Hypothesis 1a: A decreasing trajectory of change will occur in freshmen’s subjective social status.

Hypothesis 1b: A decreasing trajectory of change will occur in freshmen’s achievement motivation.

Hypothesis 2a: The higher the family SES, the higher the initial status of subjective social status will be.

Hypothesis 2b: The higher the family SES, the smaller the decrease in subjective social status will be over time.

Hypothesis 3a: The higher the family SES, the higher the initial status of achievement motivation will be.

Hypothesis 3b: The higher the family SES, the smaller the decrease in achievement motivation will be over time.

Hypothesis 4a: The higher the initial status of subjective social status, the higher the initial status of achievement motivation will be.

Hypothesis 4b: The greater the decline in subjective social status, the greater the decline in achievement motivation will be over time.

Hypothesis 5: Subjective social status will mediate the relationship between family SES and achievement motivation.

Method

Participants

The longitudinal data for this research were collected in a systematic study designed to identify the relationship between the social status and mental health of college students (Cheng et al., 2016). The cluster sample data were collected from 7 randomly selected higher education institutes in China—two in eastern economic regions, two in central economic regions, and three in western economic regions—that included comprehensive, science and engineering, finance and economics, as well as teacher-training colleges. The classification of the nation into three economic regions in China’s Seventh Five-Year Plan (1986–1990) was based on geographic location and regional economic development levels. Nine disciplines were involved: philosophy, economics, education, literature, science, engineering, agriculture, management, and arts. Of the 2,135 students registered in the first semester, 2,096 consented to participate in the study (with a participation rate of 98.2%). Among the participants, 1,983 freshmen (with a response rate of 94.6%) completed the first survey (M _age = 18.9, SD = 1.02; 49% male, 51% female; 33.5% from eastern economic regions, 33.2% from central economic regions, and 33.3% from western economic regions).

Procedures

Four waves of assessment were conducted during the first 3 months after enrollment. After participants signed the consent form, the initial survey was conducted during the college orientation week (T1), and the follow-up waves of assessment occurred 4 weeks (T2), 8 weeks (T3), and 12 weeks (T4) after the initial measurement. Students completed the questionnaires during a 40-min class session with guidance provided by trained graduate researchers for each assessment. Since some participants were absent from class at the time of the survey, the attrition rates were 6%, 9%, and 9% at T2, T3 and T4, respectively. Notably, family SES is a relatively stable variable in the short term, so it was measured only at T1, while subjective social status and achievement motivation were both measured at each time point.

Measures

Family socioeconomic status

Three different measures of family SES were used: home possessions, parental educational level and parental occupational prestige. Then, family SES was measured using the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD, 2012) Program for International Student Assessment method. The calculation was performed based on the detailed methods provided by Cheng, Zhang and Ding (2015).

First, according to the evaluation index systems, home possessions, parental educational level and parental occupational prestige were assigned values. Occupational prestige was assessed based on China’s socioeconomic index of occupation, which ranges from 10.04 to 90 (Li, 2005). Parental education was classified using the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED). The level of education of the father and mother were converted into years of schooling. Specifically, 3, 6, 9, 12, 12, 15, and 16 points were assigned to none, primary education, lower secondary, vocational/prevocational upper secondary, upper secondary and/or nontertiary postsecondary, vocational tertiary, and theoretically oriented tertiary and postgraduate, respectively. Home possessions were assessed by asking participants whether their home had each of 14 types of possessions, such as a room of their own, a computer, and a car; each positive answer scored 1 point, with a total score range of 0–14.

Second, for both parental level of education and occupational prestige, the higher the two parents’ values or the only available parent’s value was selected.

Third, to address missing values, if data for one of the three family SES variables was missing, we replaced the missing value with a regression of the other two variables.

The last step was converting the values of the three variables into a standard score. A principal component analysis was performed, and family SES was computed using the following formula: Family SES = (β1 × Z education + β2 × Z occupation + β3 × Z possession)/∊f, where β1–β3 are the factor loadings, and ∊f is the eigenvalue for the first factor (OECD, 2012). In this study, the range of participants’ family SES was −2.22 to 1.95.

Subjective social status

In each wave, college freshmen’s subjective social status was assessed using the Subjective Social Status Questionnaire for College Students (SSQC; Cheng, Zhang, Guan, & Chen, 2015). The scale contains 7 items that evaluate seven aspects of subjective social status, namely, academic achievement, family economic conditions, popularity, social practice experience, talent and skill, mastery of love, and physical appearance. Each item assesses college students’ self-perceptions of their positions in their colleges regarding that aspect (e.g., “In terms of academic achievement, where would you place yourself in your college?”). Participants indicated their subjective social status by indicating their perceived location on a drawing of a ladder with 10 rungs, with individuals at the top of the ladder having the best scores and those at the bottom having the worst scores. Each rung of the ladder was assigned a value corresponding to its height (i.e., the highest and lowest rungs were coded as 10 and 1, respectively). Higher values represented greater subjective social status. The SSQC has demonstrated good reliability and validity when assessing Chinese college students (Liu et al., 2017). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the items were .79, .83, .81, and .81 for the four waves, respectively. The results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated that the SSQC was suitable for use in the four waves [comparative fit index (CFI) = .93, .95, .97, .95; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .90, .92, .95, .92; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .07, .08, .05, .07; and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .03, .03, .03, .04]. All standardized factor loadings were significant (ranging from .33 to .81).

Achievement motivation

Achievement motivation was measured using the Chinese version (Ye & Hagtvet, 1992) of the Achievement Motives Scale (AMS; Gjesme & Nygård, 1970). This scale consists of two subscales, namely, hope for success (e.g., “I am attracted to situations that allow me to test my abilities”) and fear of failure (e.g., “I am afraid of failing when I complete tasks that I consider difficult”), with 15 items per subscale. Each item is answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Previous studies have demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the scale (Zhao et al., 2018). In this study, the internal consistencies of the hope for success and fear of failure subscales were good in the four waves (hope for success: .82, .81, .81, and .81; fear of failure: .86, .84, .82, and .83). CFAs of the responses to the two subscales were conducted separately, and the results indicated acceptable fit to the data in the four waves (hope for success: CFI = .91, .90, .92, .90; TLI = .90, .88, .91, .88; RMSEA = .06, .05, .04, .05; SRMR = .04, .04, .04, .04; fear of failure: CFI = .90, .88, .88, .90; TLI = .90, .88, .86, .88; RMSEA = .08, .07, .06, .06; and SRMR = .05, .06, .05, .05). All standardized factor loadings were significant (ranging from .32 to .71). The final achievement motivation score was computed by subtracting the total score of the fear of failure subscale from the total score of the hope for success subscale (Zhao et al., 2018). A higher score reflected higher levels of achievement motivation.

Data analysis

First, descriptive analysis of the variables of interest was performed using SPSS 26, and Pearson’s correlation tests were used to assess the associations among baseline family SES, subjective social status, and achievement motivation at the four time points.

Second, Mplus 7.4 was utilized to conduct the analyses detailed below. Missing data were handled via full-information maximum-likelihood (FIML) estimation with robust standard errors because it allows individuals with only one or two data points to remain included in the analysis. Unconditional latent growth modeling (LGM) examines the change in individual variables over time without predictors (Bollen & Curran, 2006). Thus, unconditional LGM, which does not include covariates, was applied to explore college freshmen’s growth trajectories of subjective social status and achievement motivation.

Third, an LGM mediation model was constructed to examine the mediating role of subjective social status on the relationship between family SES and achievement motivation over the first 3 months after enrollment.

The overall model fit was examined using the goodness-of-fit χ², CFI, TLI, and RMSEA with a 90% CI, p value of close fit (Pclose), and SRMR. Acceptable model fit is indicated by an RMSEA less than .08, an SRMR less than .08, and CFI and TLI values greater than .90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Results

Descriptive statistics

The chi-square test and the independent t-test were performed to determine whether there were differences between the participants who finished all four assessments and those with incomplete data. The results showed no differences with respect to sex (χ²(1) = 1.90, ns), age (t(1981) = .89, ns), family SES (t(1981) = .62, ns), subjective social status (t(1981) = −.23, ns), or achievement motivation (t(1981) = .91, ns), indicating that longitudinal data were missing at random.

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the study variables. The intercorrelations among subjective social status across the four waves were moderate (ranging from .45 to .66), and the intercorrelations among achievement motivation across the four waves were also moderate (ranging from .50 to .64). The correlations between subjective social status and achievement motivation were also statistically significant.

Table 1.

Correlations among the study variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. FSES	1
2. T1SSS	.29**
3. T2SSS	.30**	.59**
4. T3SSS	.22**	.46**	.66**
5. T4SSS	.28**	.45**	.60**	.58**
6. T1AM	−.06*	.30**	.27**	.20**	.21**
7. T2AM	−.05	.19**	.29**	.20**	.21**	.64**
8. T3AM	−.01	.16**	.23**	.25**	.19**	.54**	.62**
9. T4AM	−.05	.18**	.21**	.17**	.27**	.51**	.50**	.58**
M	.00	46.14	42.04	42.50	42.73	5.60	3.67	3.84	3.35
SD	1.00	7.36	8.36	7.84	7.76	13.21	12.06	10.75	10.82

Note. FSES = family socioeconomic status; T = time; SSS = subjective social status; AM = achievement motivation.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Unconditional LGM of changes in subjective social status and achievement motivation

To identify the developmental trajectory of freshmen’s subjective social status and achievement motivation over the first 3 months after enrollment, we specified and evaluated the fit of three possible latent growth models for subjective social status and achievement motivation, including a linear growth model, quadratic growth model, and piecewise growth model. For the linear growth models of subjective social status (Model 1a) and achievement motivation (Model 1b), the loadings of the intercept factor were set to 1, representing the starting point of the growth curve at T1, and the loadings of the slope factor were constrained to 0, 1, 2, and 3 for the four time points, representing the linear growth function. For the quadratic models of subjective social status (Model 2a) and achievement motivation (Model 2b), the loadings of the quadratic slope were the squares of those specified for the linear slope factor (0, 1, 4, and 9), signifying the degree of the quadratic curvature in the developmental trajectory. For the piecewise growth models of subjective social status (Model 3a) and achievement motivation (Model 3b), the loadings from the intercept factor to each of the four repeated measures were constrained at a value of 1, and the loadings of slope 1 were specified as (0, 1, 1, 1), representing the linear change between T1 and T2; in addition, the loadings of slope 2 were specified as (0, 0, 1, 2), representing the linear changes from T2 to T4 (Biesanz et al., 2004).

Table 2 summarizes the model coefficients estimated for the six latent growth models, as specified above. We report the Bayes information criterion (BIC), χ², CFI, TLI, RMSEA and 90% CIs, Pclose, and SRMR as the criteria for model fit. As suggested by Nylund et al. (2007), we relied primarily on the BIC to evaluate the model fit. ▵BIC is a useful tool for comparing nested and nonnested models, with smaller values of BIC indicating better fit. For subjective social status, some parameter matrices within Model 2a were not positive definite, indicating that the model specification might have been problematic. Compared to Models 1a and 2a, Model 3a best fit the data. Thus, combined with the descriptive analysis results, the piecewise growth model was preferred over all alternative models. For achievement motivation, the parameter estimation of Model 3b might not be trustworthy due to a nonpositive definite matrix. Both Models 1b and 2b fit the data similarly well, but based on the BIC values, Model 2b tended to have better fit than Model 1b. According to Raftery (1996), the change in BIC was less than 2 (▵BIC = 1.83), reflecting a trivial difference in the model fit. Thus, the linear growth model was retained for subsequent analyses because of its greater simplicity.

Table 2.

Comparisons of latent growth models for subjective social status and achievement motivation.

Model	BIC	χ²	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA (90% CI)	Pclose	SRMR
SSS
Model 1a	30475.45	266.52	5	.82	.79	.18(.17, .20)	.00	.17
Model 2a	—	—	—	—	—	—		—
Model 3a	30240.73	9.78	2	.99	.98	.05(.02, .08)	.43	.06
AM
Model 1b	33194.45	38.92	5	.98	.97	.06(.04, .08)	.07	.03
Model 2b	33192.62	7.72	1	.99	.97	.06(.03, .11)	.21	.02
Model 3b	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Note. SSS = subjective social status; AM = achievement motivation; — reflects a nonpositive definite matrix.

The growth parameters estimated in Models 3a and 1b are presented in Table 3. The results indicated that a significant decrease in subjective social status was observed in the first month (β = −3.55, SE = .20, p < .001), and then it remained stable over time (β = .16, SE = .11, p = .15). In the case of achievement motivation, the slope factor mean was negative and significant (β = −.71, SE = .12, p < .01), suggesting that achievement motivation decreased over time. Thus, both Hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported.

Table 3.

Parameter estimates from the piecewise latent growth model of subjective social status and the linear latent growth model of achievement motivation.

Parameter	SSS	AM
Means
Intercept	46.18 (.19)***	5.11 (.32)**
Slope	−3.55 (.20)***	−.71 (.12)**
Slope	.16 (.11)	−.71 (.12)**
Variances
Intercept	35.65 (1.91)***	112.55 (6.25)***
Slope	13.06 (2.93)***	4.45 (.97)***
Slope	1.03 (1.37)	4.45 (.97)***

Note. SSS = subjective social status; AM = achievement motivation; parameters are presented as β (SE).

Regarding individual differences, the intercept factor variances were both significant (p < .001), revealing individual differences in these variables at T1. Similarly, the slope factor variances for both subjective social status in the first month and achievement motivation were significant (p < .001), suggesting individual differences in the rate of change. Therefore, further model testing was useful for determining their potential predictors. Finally, the factor covariance between the intercept and the slope for achievement motivation was negative (σ_SI = −13.85, SE = 2.06, p < .001), suggesting that college freshmen who had a higher level of achievement motivation at T1 experienced a greater decline in achievement motivation over time.

Conditional LGM

After identifying the best fitting unconditional latent growth model of achievement motivation (Model 1b), we developed a conditional model to test the potential direct and indirect effects of family SES on achievement motivation (both initial status and growth). Analyses of the potential covariates (sex, economic region, and age) indicated sex and economic region differences in subjective social status and achievement motivation. Thus, sex and economic region were included as covariates in the conditional model.

This conditional model was an extension of the unconditional Model 1b and included family SES factors and subjective social status mediators. We found that the LGM mediation model (see Figure 1 with the standardized parameter estimates) had acceptable fit (χ²/df = 5.54, CFI = .96, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .05, RMSEA 90% CI = .05–.06, SRMR = .06).

Figure 1.

Final LGM mediation model. SSS-I = intercept of subjective social status; SSS-S₁ = slope 1 (T1–T2) of subjective social status; SSS-S₂ = slope 2 (T2–T4) of subjective social status; AM-I = intercept of achievement motivation; AM-S = slope of achievement motivation; WER_dc = western economic region (dummy coding); EER_dc = eastern economic region (dummy coding); significant paths are represented by solid lines; nonsignificant paths are omitted from the figure for clarity.

The multivariate model tested the associations among family SES, subjective social status, and achievement motivation. We found support for Hypothesis 2a but not for Hypothesis 2b. After controlling for sex and economic region, family SES positively predicted the intercept of subjective social status (β₁ = .37, SE = .03, p < .001), indicating that college freshmen with higher family SES had higher initial levels of subjective social status. However, family SES was related to neither subjective social status piece 1 linear slope nor subjective social status piece 2 linear slope, suggesting that family SES was unassociated with changes in subjective social status over time.

Family SES was negatively related to the initial level of achievement motivation (β₂ = −.21, SE = .04, p < .001), indicating that college freshmen with higher family SES had lower initial levels of achievement motivation. However, family SES was not related to the slope of achievement motivation. Thus, neither Hypotheses 3a nor 3b was supported.

Both Hypotheses 4a and 4b were supported. Subjective social status had a significant initial effect, and college freshmen with higher initial levels of subjective social status had higher initial levels of achievement motivation (β₃ = .54, SE = .04, p < .001). The intercept of subjective social status negatively predicted the slope of achievement motivation (β₄ = −.59, SE = .11, p < .001). Regarding the slope associations, subjective social status piece 1 linear slope (the first month after enrollment) was positively related to the intensity of the decrease in achievement motivation (β₅ = .30, SE = .14, p < .05), indicating that college freshmen who demonstrated decreased subjective social status over the first month after enrollment tended to also demonstrate decreased achievement motivation.

Mediation tests

The main purpose of the parallel process growth curve model was to examine the indirect effects of family SES on achievement motivation via subjective social status. Based on the above results, two mediation processes were observed. As presented in Table 4, after controlling for sex and economic region, the initial level of subjective social status mediated the relationship between family SES and the initial level of achievement motivation (β₁β₃ = .20, σ_β1β3 = .02, p < .001). In addition, the initial level of subjective social status mediated the relationship between family SES and the rate of change in achievement motivation over the 3 months after enrollment (β₁β₄ = −.22, σ_β1β4 = .05, p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 5 was supported.

Table 4.

Indirect effects and 95% CIs for the mediational model.

Model pathways	Point estimate	95% CI		p
Model pathways	Point estimate	Lower	Upper	p
FSES→SSS-I→AM-I	.20	.15	.24	<.001
FSES→SSS-I→AM-S	−.22	−.31	−.12	<.001
FSES→SSS-S₁→AM-S	.04	−.02	.09	>.05
FSES→SSS-S₂→AM-S	.05	−.09	.18	>.05

Note. FSES = family socioeconomic status; SSS-I = intercept of subjective social status; AM-I = intercept of achievement motivation; AM-S = slope of achievement motivation; SSS-S1 = slope 1 (T1-T2) of subjective social status; SSS-S2 = slope 2 (T2-T4) of subjective social status.

Discussion

The current study examined whether subjective social status could serve as a mediator between family SES and achievement motivation over the first 3 months after freshmen enrollment. We sought to overcome the limitations of previous research in this field by (1) investigating the longitudinal trajectories of achievement motivation and (2) focusing on the mediation process over time within Chinese culture. The results supported the expectancy-value model and the IBM theory that family SES and important aspects of identity (e.g., social-class relevant identities) shape the development of motivational beliefs. This study also expanded our understanding of the longitudinal relationship between family SES and achievement motivation via different pathways.

Longitudinal trajectories of subjective social status

On average, the longitudinal change in subjective social status was best fit to a piecewise LGM, with a significant decrease during the first month and no significant change afterward. This finding is consistent with previous research in China indicating that the first month after enrollment could be the most critical period for status attainment in a group (Cheng et al., 2016).

Subjective social status is based on not only objective characteristics, such as family SES, but also reference group processes. Different from individualistic cultures endorsing self-reliance and independence, collectivistic cultures highly value group conformity and in-group codependence, which play central roles in students’ subjective social status (Wang et al., 2019). Thus, in a Chinese cultural context, in particular, college freshmen are more likely to assess their class position relative to the students around them to form their own attitudes, values, and behaviors (Heine et al., 2002). College freshmen have just undergone a rigorous selection process in the form of “meritocratic” admissions, resulting in the homogeneity of students admitted to the same college in academic performance and synthesizing capacity. Students who enroll in college usually performed better in middle school than their peers who do not enroll in college. Therefore, freshmen face more competition for social status in college than in middle school, generating negative contrast effects (Cheng et al., 2016), which can then lead to a marked decrease in subjective social status during the first month after enrollment, after which subjective social status tended to stabilize, as college freshmen formed a well-established, stable status hierarchy (Anderson et al., 2001).

Longitudinal trajectories of achievement motivation

The study also used LGM techniques to analyze and describe achievement motivation growth over time. The findings from the current study indicate that, overall, freshmen’s achievement motivation steadily decreases during the first semester of college, in line with previous findings on negative changes in achievement motivation across only two time points (Dresel & Grassinger, 2013).

College freshmen are a unique group faced with an increasing number of changes in a new academic environment (Winne, 2018). Many freshmen struggle with new requirements, along with increased stress levels. Research on stress sources has indicated that academic stress is the main source of stress for students and can impact their motivation (Rosário et al., 2010). Furthermore, under the influence of collectivistic cultural norms, college freshmen may show pessimistic tendencies and use avoidance coping behaviors during the college transition (Sheu & Sedlacek, 2004), which may contribute to a decline in achievement motivation.

Additionally, the current study extends such findings by showing that college freshmen with lower levels of initial achievement motivation experienced a smaller decrease in achievement motivation over time. One possible explanation for this finding relates to the floor effect, i.e. a degree of decline beyond which further reductions cannot occur (Parsons & Ruble, 1977). Specifically, it is likely that initial achievement motivation is already low for some college freshmen, rendering further decline difficult. However, further research would be necessary to provide extended evidence related to this finding.

Direct longitudinal relationship between family SES and achievement motivation

The results found sex differences in initial achievement motivation status and the rate of decline in subjective social status, which could be associated with Chinese traditional culture. Under the influence of the traditional concept of “men outside, women inside,” men are required to bear more social responsibility and to achieve greater career success (Fang & Walker, 2015), resulting in male students displaying higher achievement motivation than female students. Males decreased in subjective social status at a slower rate than females, which might be related to power relations in society that reflect a male advantage (Joffer et al., 2019). In addition, college students in western underdeveloped regions showed the highest achievement motivation, and college students in eastern developed regions showed the lowest achievement motivation. College students in central subdeveloped regions were in the middle of these two achievement motivation levels. These findings are consistent with the relationship between family SES and achievement motivation.

After controlling for sex and economic region, family SES was related to initial achievement motivation status but not subsequent achievement motivation growth. Notably, this study demonstrated that family SES slightly negatively predicted the initial status of achievement motivation, inconsistent with previous findings indicating that family SES has a beneficial effect on achievement motivation but consistent with other research challenging the deficit discourse regarding students with low family SES (Guan, 2015; Ibañez et al., 2004). For instance, Guan (2015) studied the mediating role of subjective social status and self-efficacy in the relationship between family SES and achievement motivation in Chinese college students, finding that family SES negatively predicted achievement motivation. Different from high-SES students, low-SES students have limited resources available to them, and they must fight for success in higher education, such as by being determined to apply themselves and study hard. Research has demonstrated that students with low family SES in higher education are determined, persistent, and empowered to succeed, exhibiting high aspirations (Becker et al., 2017).

Another possibility is the higher college expectations of low family SES students. College opportunities remain competitive even with the expansion of large-scale higher education in China. Research in China has shown that students from families with higher SES are more likely to have access to higher education than students from families with lower SES (Luo et al., 2018). As a result, students from low-SES families who enter college are a very select group. Moreover, cross-cultural research has indicated that Asian families in particular place a high value on education. Attending college to help family and to meet family expectations regarding education was stronger among low-SES students. Thus, they tended to have higher college expectations than their high-SES peers in the transition from high school to college (Wei et al., 2019).

Indirect longitudinal relationship between family SES and achievement motivation

The results also suggested that after controlling for sex and economic region, family SES positively predicted the initial achievement motivation level via initial subjective social status. According to the family stress model, economic hardship triggers parental emotional stress, which may lead to low nurturant-involved parenting (Conger & Conger, 2002). In addition, Martin et al. (2010) extended the traditional family investment model by proposing that parents with higher SES make greater material investments (e.g., create excellent learning environments), as well as emotional and behavioral investments (e.g., warm and nurturing parenting) in their children’s development, whereas parents with lower SES must invest in more immediate family needs. The more parents show such involvement in their children’s education, the greater their children’s expectancy beliefs, including their self-efficacy and self-concept, which are closely related to subjective social status (Artelt et al., 2003); thus, these students often perform better in school and have enhanced achievement motivation (Chiu & Zeng, 2008).

Differential effects could indicate that family SES acts as a double-edged sword. Although research on family SES typically has focused on its benefits, family SES can also have deleterious consequences. Ibañez et al. (2004) found that students from lower SES families reported higher motivation than those from higher SES families. A survey by Wright et al. (1999) revealed that family SES has both negative and positive effects on delinquency. These negative and positive effects coexist and can cancel each other out. This converges with research suggesting that family SES has two sides, i.e. a “bright side” and a “dark side.” In this study, the “bright side” was manifested in the indirect pathway that family SES positively predicted achievement motivation through subjective social status, and the “dark side” was manifested in the direct pathway that family SES negatively predicted achievement motivation. The bright side of family SES was obscured by its dark side, resulting in a weak, negative correlation between family SES and achievement motivation.

With regard to the indirect effect of family SES on subsequent achievement motivation growth, sex and economic region were included as covariates; family SES indirectly predicted subsequent achievement motivation growth through initial subjective social status. This result suggests that family SES indirectly predicted achievement motivation via initial subjective social status, not only temporarily but persistently over time. Specifically, when family SES was lower, the initial levels of subjective social status were lower; consequently, the rate of decline in achievement motivation was slower. The floor effect might be a possible cause of these findings.

The current study further showed that decreases in subjective social status during the first month after enrollment positively predicted more rapid decreases in achievement motivation, providing strong and novel evidence for the IBM theory that subjective social status is an aspect of identity that carries many messages and provides a basis for making sense of the world through norms, values, strategies and goals (Oyserman, 2009). The decrease in subjective social status during the college transition period may lead freshmen to question their identities as high-achieving students and consequently decrease their achievement motivation (Gray, 2017).

Implications

The present study contributes to the literature on achievement motivation among college freshmen by illustrating a linear decrease in achievement motivation during the college transition in China, indicating a need to assist students’ development of achievement motivation at the start of college studies. Moreover, the current study reveals the dual character of family SES and separates the beneficial effect through subjective social status from the direct harmful effect on achievement motivation. Our longitudinal data provide further evidence that decreased subjective social status is positively associated with a decrease in achievement motivation.

The above results suggest that the design of interventions for college freshmen should focus on the promotion of subjective social status and not only their absolute social position. Upward social comparisons cause students to feel ashamed of themselves, and downward social comparisons trigger a desire for superiority toward others. In contrast, downward temporal comparisons (comparing one’s present self favorably to one’s past self, rather than to others) cause students to feel proud and give them a sense of progress and insight without triggering a desire for superiority (Gürel et al., 2020). Considering this type of comparison, recommendations for schools and families that encourage college freshmen to evaluate themselves using temporal comparisons (focused on personal growth and development) and attempt to combat intense (and often harmful) social comparisons may be a helpful strategy to enhance achievement motivation during the college transition, which is critical to facilitating freshmen’s transition and adaptation to college life.

Limitations and future directions

Although we believe that our study contributes to a better understanding of the longitudinal direct and indirect pathways linking family SES to achievement motivation among Chinese college freshmen, the current study also has certain limitations that might be addressed in future research. First, this study was limited to a restricted population of college freshmen from several disciplines in Chinese colleges. Thus, some caution might be exercised in drawing conclusions, and future studies using a larger and more diverse sample are necessary to ensure the robustness and the generalizability of the findings. Second, although sex and economic region were controlled for in this study, there could be other characteristics (e.g., race/minority status, student employment) that could influence the results. Therefore, future research should control these factors. Third, there are other important mediators that exist in the relationship between family SES and achievement motivation beyond those tested in this research, such as access to resources and parental involvement. Future research could adopt the LGM approach to further test these additional pathways. Fourth, despite the longitudinal nature of the dataset, the model tested in this study did not allow us to draw causal inferences because self-report scales were used to measure all variables. Future research could manipulate subjective social status using a priming technique to further verify such possible relationships. Fifth, there was a floor effect in the rate of decline in achievement motivation for college freshmen who had lower initial levels of achievement motivation. Hence, other methods of measuring achievement motivation could be considered in future research. Finally, considering complex cultural and social context may influence achievement motivation; therefore, it is important for future research to investigate the influence of the university admission system in China (e.g., the national college entrance exam (CEE)) on the development of achievement motivation among college freshmen and, further, to conduct cross-cultural comparative studies.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the Research Project of Humanities and Social Sciences in Colleges and Universities of Guizhou Province (Master Program) supported by the Department of Education of Guizhou Province (DEGP, Project No. 31760283) awarded to Gang Cheng; Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Educational Committee (LNEC, Project No. LJ2020018) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, Project No. 32000774) awarded to Lili Wu. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in the paper are solely of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of DEGP, LNEC, and NSFC.

ORCID iD

Gang Cheng

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are cannot be publicly shared but are available upon request. The data can be obtained by emailing: chenggang314@163.com. The materials used in the research cannot be publicly shared but are available upon request. The materials can be obtained by emailing: chenggang314@163.com.

References

Allport

G. W.

(1953). The Trend in motivational theory. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 23(1), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1953.tb00041.x

Anderson

John

O. P.

Keltner

Kring

A. M.

(2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.116

Artelt

Baumert

McElvany

N. J.

Peschar

(2003). Learners for life: Student approaches to learning. Results from PISA 2000. OECD.

Becker

J. C.

Kraus

M. W.

Rheinschmidt-Same

(2017). Cultural expressions of social class and their implications for group-related beliefs and behaviors. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12209

Biesanz

J. C.

Deeb-Sossa

Papadakis

A. A.

Bollen

K. A.

Curran

P. J.

(2004). The role of coding time in estimating and interpreting growth curve models. Psychological Methods, 9(1), 30–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.1.30

Bollen

K. A.

Curran

P. J.

(2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation approach. Wiley.

Bradley

R. H.

Corwyn

R. F.

(2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 371–399. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233

Brunstein

J. C.

Heckhausen

(2010). Achievement motivation. In Heckhausen

Heckhausen

(Eds.), Motivation and action (1st ed., pp. 137–183). Cambridge University Press.

Cheng

Zhang

D. J.

Ding

F. Y.

(2015). Self-esteem and fear of negative evaluation as mediators between family socioeconomic status and social anxiety in Chinese emerging adults. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 61(6), 569–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764014565405

10.

Cheng

Zhang

D. J.

Guan

Y. S.

Chen

Y. H.

(2015). On composition of college students’ subjective social status indexes and their characteristics. Journal of Southwest University (Natural Science Edition), 37(6), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.13718/j.cnki.xdzk.2015.06.025

11.

Cheng

Zhang

D. J.

Xiao

Y. Q.

Guan

Y. S.

Chen

Y. H.

(2016). The longitudinal effects of subjective social status on depression in Chinese college freshmen transition: A multivariate latent growth approach. Psychological Development and Education, 32(6), 753–760. https://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2016.06.14

12.

Chiu

M. M.

Zeng

X. H.

(2008). Family and motivation effects on mathematics achievement: Analyses of students in 41 countries. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.06.003

13.

Conger

R. D.

Conger

K. J.

(2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00361.x

14.

Cosgrove

J. M.

Chen

Y. T.

Castelli

D. M.

(2018). Physical fitness, grit, school attendance, and academic performance among adolescents. BioMed Research International, 2018, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9801258

15.

Dresel

Grassinger

(2013). Changes in achievement motivation among university freshmen. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1(2), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v1i2.147

16.

Eccles

J. S.

Adler

T. F.

Futterman

Goff

S. B.

Kaczala

C. M.

Meece

J. L.

Midgley

(1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In Spence

J. T.

(Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). W. H. Freeman.

17.

Fang

Walker

(2015). “Full-time wife” and the change of gender order in the Chinese city. The Journal of Chinese Sociology, 2(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-015-0006-x

18.

Gjesme

Nygård

(1970). Achievement motivation scale. University of Oslo.

19.

Gray

D. L.

(2017). Is psychological membership in the classroom a function of standing out while fitting in? Implications for achievement motivation and emotions. Journal of School Psychology, 61, 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.02.001

20.

Guan

Y. S.

(2015). Correlations among social status, general self-efficacy, and achievement motivation in college students [Master’s thesis]. https://www-cnki-net-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/

21.

Guo

Marsh

H. W.

Parker

P. D.

Morin

A. J.

Yeung

A. S.

(2015). Expectancy-value in mathematics, gender and socioeconomic background as predictors of achievement and aspirations: A multi-cohort study. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.01.008

22.

Gürel

Ç.

Brummelman

Sedikides

Overbeek

(2020). Better than my past self: temporal comparison raises children’s pride without triggering superiority goals. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 149(8), 1554–1566. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000733

23.

Heine

S. J.

Lehman

D. R.

Peng

Greenholtz

(2002). What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 903–918. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.903

24.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

25.

Huie

F. C.

Winsler

Kitsantas

(2014). Employment and first-year college achievement: The role of self-regulation and motivation. Journal of Education & Work, 27(1), 110–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2012.718746

26.

Ibañez

G. E.

Kuperminc

G. P.

Jurkovic

Perilla

(2004). Cultural attributes and adaptations linked to achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(6), 559–568. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOYO.0000048069.22681.2c

27.

Joffer

Flacking

Bergström

Randell

Jerdén

(2019). Self-rated health, subjective social status in school and socioeconomic status in adolescents: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7140-3

28.

Lazarus

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.

29.

C. L.

(2005). Prestige stratification in the contemporary Chinese society: Occupation prestige and social economic status index measurement. Sociological Studies, 2, 74–102.

30.

Liu

G. Z.

Zhang

D. J.

Pan

Y. G.

T. Q.

Chen

W. F.

Wang

(2017). Self-concept clarity and subjective social status as mediators between psychological suzhi and social anxiety in Chinese adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.067

31.

Luo

Guo

Shi

(2018). Expansion and inequality of higher education in China: How likely would Chinese poor students get to success?. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(5), 1015–1034. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1474856

32.

Martin

M. J.

Conger

R. D.

Schofield

T. J.

Dogan

S. J.

Widaman

K. F.

Donnellan

M. B.

Neppl

T. K.

(2010). Evaluation of the interactionist model of socioeconomic status and problem behavior: A developmental cascade across generations. Development and Psychopathology, 22(3), 695–713. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000374

33.

Nylund

K. L.

Asparouhov

Muthén

B. O.

(2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396

34.

OECD (2012). PISA 2009 technical report. OECD Publishing.

35.

Oyserman

(2009). Identity-based motivation and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 276–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.06.001

36.

Parsons

J. E.

Ruble

D. N.

(1977). The development of achievement-related expectancies. Child Development, 48(3), 1075–1079. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128364

37.

Raftery

A. E.

(1996). Approximate Bayes factors and accounting for model uncertainty in generalized linear models. Biometrika, 83(2), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/83.2.251

38.

Rosário

Núñez

J. C.

González-Pienda

Valle

Trigo

Guimarães

(2010). Enhancing self-regulation and approaches to learning in first-year college students: A narrative-based programme assessed in the Iberian Peninsula. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25(4), 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-010-0020-y

39.

Roy

A. L.

Isaia

Li-Grining

C. P.

(2019). Making meaning from money: Subjective social status and young children’s behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 33(2), 240–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000487

40.

Schneider

B. H.

Tomada

Normand

Tonci

De Domini

(2008). Social support as a predictor of school bonding and academic motivation following the transition to Italian middle school. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(2), 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507087960

41.

Sheu

H. B.

Sedlacek

W. H.

(2004). An exploratory study of help-seeking attitudes and coping strategies among college students by race and gender. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37(3), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2004.11909755

42.

Singh-Manoux

Adler

N. E.

Marmot

M. G.

(2003). Subjective social status: Its determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II study. Social Science & Medicine, 56(6), 1321–1333. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00131-4

43.

Szepsenwol

Zamir

Simpson

J. A.

(2019). The effect of early-life harshness and unpredictability on intimate partner violence in adulthood: A life history perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(5), 1542–1556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518806680

44.

Tucker-Drob

E. M.

Briley

D. A.

Engelhardt

L. E.

Mann

F. D.

Harden

K. P.

(2016). Genetically-mediated associations between measures of childhood character and academic achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), 790–815. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000098

45.

Walpole

(2003). Socioeconomic status and college: How SES affects college experiences and outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 27(1), 45–73. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2003.0044

46.

Wang

M. T.

Eccles

J. S.

(2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 28, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.04.002

47.

Wang

M. T.

Guo

Degol

J. L.

(2019). The role of sociocultural factors in student achievement motivation: A cross-cultural review. Adolescent Research Review, 5(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-019-00124-y

48.

Wei

Zhou

Yang

(2019). College expectations and choices: Explaining the gaps in college enrollment for high- and low-SES students in China. International Journal of Educational Development, 70, 102079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2019.102079

49.

Weiner

(1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

50.

Wilbur

T. G.

Roscigno

V. J.

(2016). First-generation disadvantage and college enrollment/completion. Socius, 2, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023116664351

51.

Winne

P. H.

(2018). Theorizing and researching levels of processing in self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12173

52.

J. Z.

Huang

H. Z.

Lin

C. D.

(2001). A study on the development characteristics of achievement motivation in adolescents. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 33(2), 160–169.

53.

Wolff

L. S.

Subramanian

S. V.

Acevedo-Garcia

Weber

Kawachi

(2010). Compared to whom? Subjective social status, self-rated health, and referent group sensitivity in a diverse US sample. Social Science & Medicine, 70(12), 2019–2028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.02.033

54.

Wright

B. R. E.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Miech

R. A.

Silva

P. A.

(1999). Reconsidering the relationship between SES and delinquency: Causation but not correlation. Criminology, 37(1), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1999.tb00483.x

55.

Yang

C. C.

Brown

B. B.

(2016). Online self-presentation on Facebook and self-development during the college transition. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(2), 402–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0385-y

56.

R. M.

Hagtvet

K. A.

(1992). Measurement and analysis of achievement motivation. Psychological Development and Education, 3, 14–16.

57.

Zhang

Jiang

Ming

Yang

Huang

(2020). Family socioeconomic status and adolescents’ academic achievement: The moderating roles of subjective social mobility and attention. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 49(9), 1821–1834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-020-01287-x

58.

Zhao

Maes

J. H.

(2018). Are training and transfer effects of working memory updating training modulated by achievement motivation?. Memory & Cognition, 46(3), 398–409. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0773-5