Parenting,Major Choice Motivation,and Academic Major Satisfaction Among Filipino College Students: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective

Abstract

Guided by Self-Determination Theory (SDT), this study examined the relationships among parenting (autonomy-supportive and controlling), major choice motivations (autonomous and controlled), and academic major satisfaction with a sample of 525 Filipino college students. Consistent with the hypotheses, the results of structural equation modeling indicated that perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting were positively associated with autonomous and controlled major choice motivations, respectively. In addition, autonomous and controlled major choice motivations differentially predicted academic major satisfaction. Findings also revealed that while autonomous major choice motivation mediated the relation between autonomy-supportive parenting and academic major satisfaction, controlled major choice motivation mediated the association between controlling parenting and academic major satisfaction. Practical implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

autonomy-supportive parenting controlling parenting major choice motivation major satisfaction SDT

Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2012) is a conceptual framework that elucidates how interpersonal environments promote optimal human development and functioning. SDT holds that perceiving significant others (e.g., parents) as autonomy-supportive versus controlling is crucial for self-motivation and well-being, even for individuals from collectivist cultures (Chirkov & Ryan, 2001). Studies from Asian contexts have demonstrated that autonomy support is essential for psychological need satisfaction (Oga-Baldwin & Nakata, 2015; Soenens et al., 2018), autonomous motivation (Chang et al., 2016; Maulana et al., 2016), and well-being (Nie et al., 2015; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005), supporting the application of SDT to cultures that place a premium on collectivist values such as conformity, respect for parental authority, and social harmony (Chao & Tseng, 2002). However, little is known about the application of SDT to career development in non-Western contexts. Moreover, research from these contexts that delved into the role of parental support in students’ career decision-making (e.g., Garcia et al., 2012) remains relatively few. Therefore, the current study aimed to address these gaps by making key contributions to SDT and career literature.

First, it looked into the impacts of autonomy-supportive versus controlling parenting and college students’ motivations for choosing their academic majors on the degree to which they are satisfied with their chosen field of study (henceforth referred to as “academic major satisfaction,” Nauta, 2007). This investigation is worthwhile given the crucial role that both interpersonal (e.g., parenting) and motivational factors play in school-related transitions (e.g., from high school to college; Vasalampi et al., 2018), a period during which many students make career-related decisions.

Second, it proposed that students’ autonomous and controlled motivations for choosing their academic majors mediate the relations between parenting and academic major satisfaction. SDT makes a distinction between autonomous (self-determined) and controlled (non-self-determined) motivations. Autonomous motivation is characterized by activities and behaviors that are enacted with a full sense of choice, volition, and willingness (Deci et al., 2017; Deci & Ryan, 2000). In contrast, controlled motivation reflects behaviors that are enacted to satisfy external demands or suppress feelings of guilt and shame (Vansteenkiste et al., 2010). To illustrate the distinction, a student may choose a college major that is based on their interests and career goals (autonomous major choice motivation) or because they feel pressured by their parents to do so (controlled major choice motivation). SDT-based research has also confirmed that self-motivation mediates the relation between autonomy-support and well-being outcomes (e.g., job and life satisfaction) among non-Western samples (Nie et al., 2015; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005). Thus, testing the role of autonomous and controlled major choice motivations in the association between autonomy-supportive versus controlling parenting and academic major satisfaction is essential for a better understanding of the mechanisms through which relational factors predict career well-being (Pesch et al., 2016).

Finally, it extended the utility of SDT in a collectivistic society such as the Philippines (Church, 1987; Church & Katigbak, 2002). In the Philippines, career choice is a family affair (Salazar-Clemeña, 2002). Due to a strong focus on family cohesion, obedience, and the desire for harmony and inclusiveness in their relationships (Alampay, 2014), Filipino youth base their choice of academic major on their parents’ advice or suggestions (Miralao, 2004) and consider their authority as legitimate in such decision (Bernardo, 2012). This affirms how parental influences are particularly salient in Filipino students’ career decision-making (Garcia et al., 2012) that even into adolescence and young adulthood, these influences remain impactful (Alampay, 2014). However, whether the parental provision of autonomy support is relevant to one’s major choice motivation and academic major satisfaction in a cultural setting where deference to parental authority and obedience on the part of children characterized parenting and parent-child interactions (Alampay, 2014) has yet to be explored. Hence, testing the observed relationships in a sample of Filipino students may enrich the applicability and universality of SDT.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Parenting and Major Choice Motivation

In SDT, parents are viewed as socializing agents who face the challenge of fostering autonomy-supportive conditions to promote their children’s self-determined motivation and subsequent optimal psychosocial functioning (Grolnick et al., 1997). In an autonomy-supportive home environment, parents are said to acknowledge their children’s feelings, provide them the rationale for rules and demands, and give them the freedom to make their own choices within certain limits. By contrast, in a controlling home environment, parents induce feelings of guilt, threaten their children with punishments, and pressure them to make their performance better than others (Mageau et al., 2015).

The notion that parental behaviors have either beneficial or detrimental effects on students’ motivation underlying their educational and career-related behaviors has been empirically supported. For instance, Dietrich and Salmela-Aro (2013) found in their long-term longitudinal study that the more students perceived their parents as supportive and warm in their career-related decisions before their high school graduation, the more they pursued career goals for self-determined reasons and the less they pursued their career goals out of controlled motivation three years later. In a similar vein, Vasalampi et al.’s (2018) findings indicated that high maternal supportiveness was significantly associated with adolescents’ high autonomous education goal motivation, whereas low maternal support was related to the pursuit of educational goals out of controlled motivation.

Supporting the foregoing findings, research conducted in collectivistic contexts justifies the importance of autonomy support for students’ motivation. Maulana et al. (2016) revealed that a high degree of autonomy support corresponds to a high level of autonomous motivation among Indonesian students. Using a quasi-experimental design, Chang et al. (2016) found that Taiwanese student participants assigned to the autonomy-support group reported a higher level of self-determined motivation than the participants in the control group. Given the aforementioned findings, the current study predicted that autonomy-supportive parenting would positively associate with autonomous major choice motivation (Hypothesis 1) while controlling parenting would positively associate with controlled major choice motivation (Hypothesis 2).

Major Choice Motivation and Academic Major Satisfaction

Self-motivation is a central SDT variable that is associated with educational (Vasalampi et al., 2018; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005; Wang, 2008), career (Dietrich & Salmela-Aro, 2013; Guay, 2005), and work-related constructs (Fernet et al., 2008; Nie et al., 2015), both in Western and non-Western contexts. Recent studies have shown that volitional functioning and different forms of motivation predicted academic major satisfaction. For example, Madison et al. (2018) examined mass communication students’ motivations for choosing their major. Their findings suggest that students who chose their major based on intrinsic, relative to extrinsic, motivation tended to be more satisfied with their selection. Pesch et al. (2016) found that perceived volitional autonomy predicted the indicators of career well-being (i.e., academic major satisfaction and career distress). Supporting this study, Schenkenfelder et al. (2020) found that volitional autonomy in students’ academic major was directly related to academic major satisfaction. On the basis of the foregoing findings, the current study proposed that autonomous major choice motivation would positively predict (Hypotheses 3) and controlled major choice motivation would negatively predict academic major satisfaction (Hypotheses 4).

The Mediating Role of Major Choice Motivation

SDT underscores that autonomous and controlled forms of motivation mediate the relations between social context variables and individual well-being (Deci et al., 2017). Hence, it is plausible that autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting predict academic major satisfaction via autonomous and controlled major choice motivations.

When students perceive their parents as autonomy-supportive, they are more likely to feel autonomous with regard to career decision-making activities (Guay et al., 2003) such as choosing a college major or setting career goals that reflect their interests and values (Dietrich & Salmela-Aro, 2013). In turn, they might experience a high degree of satisfaction with their choices and decisions. Conversely, when parents foment an environment that promotes controlled motivation, their children are more likely to feel pressured or stressed when engaging in career-related tasks (Dietrich & Salmela-Aro, 2013). As a result, they might select an academic major that does not match their interests, skills, future goals, and career values. As such, the current study posited that the positive effect of autonomy-supportive parenting on academic major satisfaction would be mediated by autonomous major choice motivation (Hypothesis 5) and the negative impact of controlling parenting on academic major satisfaction would be mediated by controlled major choice motivation (Hypothesis 6).

Method

Participants and Procedures

Participants were 525 Filipino college students from a private university in Manila City, Philippines. Two hundred seventy-six participants (52.6%) are female, 247 (47%) are male, and 2 (.4%) participants did not indicate their gender. The students ranged in age from 18 to 26 years (M = 18.8; SD = 1.07). In terms of year level, 501 (95.4%) students were freshmen, 17 (3.2%) were sophomores, 5 (1%) were juniors, and 2 (.4%) unreported. As to academic major, the participants were enrolled in engineering (46.1%), psychology (19.4%), pharmacy (10.7%), computer science (9.3%), geology (8.2%), educational science (1.9%), management (.8%), other majors (1.4%), and no majors indicated (2.1%). With respect to their parents’ education level, 163 (31.05%) participants reported that both of their parents were bachelor’s degree graduates, 24 (4.57%) indicated that both of their parents were college graduates, but one of them pursued further studies (e.g., MBA, PhD), and 9 (1.71%) specified that both of their parents pursued further education.

Approval for this research was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee. Before conducting the survey, the researcher briefed the faculty members about the purpose of the study and asked them for permission to conduct the survey in their respective classes. Upon approval, the researcher distributed the questionnaires and written informed consent forms to the students in the classroom. They were informed that their participation was voluntary, confidential, and could be withdrawn at any time. They were also assured that only the researcher could access their data. As an incentive for their participation, the students were offered a raffle to win 300 pesos worth of gift certificates.

Measures

All items were presented in English because it is the medium of instruction at the university where the data were collected. Prior to full scale administration, a pilot study was conducted to provide preliminary evidence for the reliability and cross-cultural validity of the measures. Unless otherwise specified, all scale items were rated on a 6-point Likert scale (from 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 6 = “Strongly Agree”). The scales that were administered in the pilot and current study were as follows: The Academic Major Satisfaction Scale (AMSS), the Perceived Parental Autonomy Support Scale (P-PASS), and the Major Choice Motivation Scale (MCMS).

Academic major satisfaction

The 6-item AMSS (Nauta, 2007) was used to measure students’ satisfaction with their academic majors (e.g., “Overall, I am happy with the major I’ve chosen”). Higher scores indicate higher levels of major satisfaction (Schenkenfelder et al., 2020). In the pilot study, the results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed that a 6-item factor with an eigenvalue of 3.64 accounted for 53.39% of the total variance. Moreover, the pilot study showed that the AMSS correlated positively with autonomy-supportive parenting (r = .22) and autonomous forms of major choice motivation (rs ranged from .54 to .65) and negatively with controlled parenting (r = –.19), external motivation (r = –.47), and introjected motivation (r = –.39). The original scale showed excellent internal consistency (Study 1: α = .94; Study 2: α = .90), positive relationships with students’ grade point average and career decision self-efficacy, and negative relationships with career-choice anxiety and generalized indecisiveness (Nauta, 2007). The AMSS exhibited satisfactory internal consistency in the pilot (α = .86) and current study (α = .83).

Perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting

Perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting were measured using the 24-item P-PASS (Mageau et al., 2015). This scale encompasses two dimensions: Autonomy-support (e.g., “My parents encouraged me to be myself”) and Psychological Control (e.g., “My parents used guilt to control me”). The three Autonomy-support subscales are provision of choices (4 items), provision of rationale for rules and demands (4 items), and acknowledgment of child’s feelings (4 items) while the three subscales of Psychological Control are use of threats (4 items), performance pressures (4 items), and guilt induction (4 items). The participants indicated their responses to each item pertaining to their fathers and mothers, separately. In the present study, one of the Psychological Control subscales (i.e., use of threats) yielded low internal consistency estimates (α = .53 for mothers; α = .55 for fathers). Upon thorough examination, it was found that Item 9 (i.e., “When I was not allowed to do something, I usually knew why”) was inadvertently duplicated in the questionnaire and the duplicate item was labeled as Item 10. Thus, this item was omitted. The deletion of the duplicate item resulted in an improved internal consistency reliability scores (α = .74 for mothers; α = .75 for fathers).

Given the strong correlations between perceived maternal and paternal autonomy-supportive (rs ranged from .73 to .85) and controlling (rs ranged from .86 to .89) subscale scores, these scores were averaged in all subsequent analyses in the current study. Prior research (Mageau et al., 2015) found that the P-PASS autonomy-support dimension was positively correlated with life satisfaction, self-esteem, positive affect, parental acceptance, and monitoring whereas controlling parenting was found to be negatively correlated with these constructs and positively related to negative affect. Furthermore, the reported average scores for autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting scales demonstrated strong evidence of good internal consistency (Study 2; α = .94 and .89, respectively). In the pilot study, EFA results yielded two factors with extracted eigenvalues greater than 1 (autonomy-supportive = 3.42; controlling = 1.32), explaining 67.77% of the total variance. The three autonomy-support subscales loaded significantly on the first factor, whereas the three controlling parenting subscales loaded significantly on the second factor. Moreover, autonomy-support correlated positively with AMSS and autonomous forms of motivation (rs ranged from .22 to .34) and negatively with controlled parenting (r = –.47), extrinsic motivation (r = –.27), and introjected motivation (r = –.23). Controlling parenting correlated negatively with AMSS and integrated motivation (r = –.17) and positively with extrinsic (r = .32) and introjected motivation (r = .32). The pilot study showed adequate internal consistency for autonomy-supportive (α = .89) and controlling parenting (α = .79). In the current study, the observed internal consistency reliability scores for autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting were both satisfactory (Cronbach’s αs were .82 and .75, respectively).

Autonomous and controlled major choice motivation

The researcher designed the MCMS to measure students’ motivations for choosing their academic majors. The MCMS is composed of two 4-item controlled motivation (i.e., external and introjected motivations) and three 4-item autonomous motivation (i.e., identified, integrated, and intrinsic motivations) subscales. These subscales were all based upon the motivational subtypes specified in SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000; 2012).

Sixteen of the MCMS items were derived from the Behavioral Regulation in Sport Questionnaire-6 (BRSQ-6; Lonsdale et al., 2008) and modified so that the statements would capture the possible reasons why students’ choose their majors (e.g., the original item, “because the benefits of sport are important to me” was modified as “because its benefits are important to me and for my future career”). Of the remaining 4 items, 2 items (“because I find it interesting” and “because I find it fascinating”) were based on the Interest subscale of the Motivations Influencing Course Choice (MICC) questionnaire (Skatova & Ferguson, 2014) and 2 items (“because I think it is good for me” and “because it is aligned with my skills”) were constructed and anchored in the definitions and descriptions of identified and integrated motivations (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2012). The BRSQ-6 produced strong evidence of discriminant and factorial validity (λ ranged from .53 to .94) and good internal consistency reliability across three studies (Cronbach’s α ranged from .71 to .93; Lonsdale et al., 2008). Similarly, the MICC questionnaire, a scale that measures students’ motivations for choosing their undergraduate degrees and is divided into four subscales (i.e., Helping, Loafing, Interest, and Career), demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α for Study 1 and 2 = .80). The MICC questionnaire was also found to be associated with the Big Five personality traits and life goals (Skatova & Ferguson, 2014).

To assess the psychometric properties of the MCMS, several procedures were employed. First, the content validity of the MCMS was examined by two panel experts who both have a solid background in scale development and extensive knowledge of Filipino college students’ academic motivation. Twenty-four MCMS items were originally constructed. However, based on the suggestions of the panel experts, 4 items were discarded. Second, the remaining 20 MCMS items were submitted to a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the factor structure of the scale. Third, the factorial validity of the scores derived from the 20-item MCMS was assessed by inspecting the factor loadings of the items. The size of the factor loading should be .50 or higher to indicate that the items converge on their respective subscales (Hair et al., 2014). Fourth, the convergent validity and discriminant validity of the model were assessed. The AVE estimate for each factor must be greater than .50 to suggest adequate convergent validity and the AVE estimates should be higher than the square of the correlations between autonomous and controlled motivation subscales to demonstrate evidence of discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2014). Next, the correlations of autonomous and controlled major choice motivation subscales with parenting constructs and the AMSS were examined. Lastly, the Cronbach’s α coefficients were examined to assess the internal consistency reliability of scores from each subscale.

CFA results indicated that the five-factor structure with two controlled and three autonomous motivation latent factors yielded an acceptable model fit: (χ² [160, N = 226] = 376.04, p < .001), CFI = .92, TLI = .90, SRMR = .066, RMSEA = .086. The standardized factor loadings (see Table 1) were all significant (p < .001) and high ranging from .56 to .90, with a mean λ of .77. These factor loadings were relatively similar to the estimates reported in a prior study (Lonsdale et al., 2008). The requirements for convergent and discriminant validity were partially satisfied. Specifically, the AVE for all subscales, except for identified motivation (AVE = .50), were all greater than .50, ranging from .51 to .75. These AVE estimates were also greater than the square of the correlations between autonomous and controlled motivation subscales (r²s ranged from .10 to .28). In addition, the autonomous major choice motivation subscales correlated positively with autonomy-supportive parenting and the AMSS, while the controlled major choice motivation subscales correlated positively with controlling parenting and negatively with the AMSS. Finally, the correlation/Cronbach’s αs for the five subscales (external motivation: α = .87, introjected motivation: α = .81, identified motivation: α = .81, integrated motivation: α = .88, and intrinsic motivation: α = .92) and total scales (controlled major choice motivation: r = .77; autonomous major choice motivation: α = .87) demonstrated good internal consistency.

Table 1.

MCMS Items with Standardized Factor Loadings (FL).

Items	FL
STEM: I chose this major… External Motivation (CM)
because people pushed me to do so.	.77
to satisfy people who wanted me to do so.	.64
because I feel pressured by other people to do so.	.89
because if I did not do it, other people would not be pleased with me.	.85
Introjected Motivation (CM)
because I would feel guilty if I did not do it.	.72
because I would feel ashamed of myself if I did not do it.	.61
because I feel obligated to do so.	.77
because I would feel like a failure if I did not do it.	.74
Identified Motivation (AM)
because its benefits are important to me and for my future career.	.56
because I value its benefits.	.71
because I think it is good for me.	.82
because it is a good way to learn things which could be useful for my future career.	.70
Integrated Motivation (AM)
because it would give me the opportunity to just be who I am.	.81
because it is aligned with my skills.	.82
because it would enable or help me express who I am.	.84
because it is aligned with my academic and career goals/values.	.75
Intrinsic Motivation (AM)
because I knew I would enjoy it.	.83
because I personally like it.	.90
because I find it interesting.	.89
because I find it fascinating.	.86

CM = Controlled Motivation; AM = Autonomous Motivation. All estimates are significant at p < .001.

Accordingly, the validated 20-item MCMS was used in the current study. The participants were asked to read an item stem (i.e., I chose this major…) followed by the possible reasons for choosing their academic majors. Using a 1 (Not true at all) to 6 (Very true) scale, the participants were asked to indicate how true each statement was for them. In the current study, the estimated internal consistency was as follows: controlled major choice motivation (external motivation: α = .86; introjected motivation: α = .82; total scale: r = .78) and autonomous major choice motivation (identified motivation: α = .74, integrated motivation: α = .85, and intrinsic motivation: α = .84; total scale: α = .84).

Data Analysis

The hypothesized model was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) in lavaan package in R (Rosseel, 2012) with maximum likelihood (ML) estimator. To evaluate model fit, the following fit indices were used: the chi-square (χ²) test, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Weston & Gore, 2006). A significant χ² suggests a poor-fitting model however, this test is more susceptible to large sample sizes. CFI and TLI values >0.90 and > .95 represent acceptable and excellent model fit and values proximal to .06 for RMSEA and .08 for SRMR indicate a relatively good fit between the proposed model and the observed data.

In addition, the bootstrap method was adapted (Shrout & Bolger, 2002), and bias-corrected 95% CI estimates drawn from 5,000 random bootstrap samples were used to test the indirect paths from autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting to academic major satisfaction.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Of the initial 591 participants who took part in the study, the data from 14 students were removed due to the following reasons: 1 participant was a multivariate outlier with a significant Mahalanobis Distance score (p < .001), 9 participants left the P-PASS blank, 2 participants did not follow the instruction in filling out the P-PASS, and 2 participants did not respond to the AMSS. The data from 52 participants from single-parent households were also excluded given that mothers’ and fathers’ scores were aggregated in all subsequent analyses and the results of independent samples t-tests that showed that their scores on all study variables did not significantly differ from those of the participants from dual-parent families (ps > .05). Of the remaining 525 participants, 7 students had one missing response and 1 student was missing 2 items. Little’s (1988) MCAR test suggests that these values were missing completely at random: χ²(80) = 97.89; p = .09. Accordingly, missing data were handled using full information maximum likelihood approach (Schlomer et al., 2010). Furthermore, none of the observed indicators had skewness and kurtosis values <3 and <10, respectively, suggesting that the assumption of univariate normal distribution was met (Weston & Gore, 2006).

Descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables are provided in Table 2 As shown, the relations between parenting and motivational variables were in the expected direction. In addition, both autonomous and controlled major choice motivations were significantly correlated with academic major satisfaction. The independent samples t-test showed no significant gender difference in academic major satisfaction (p > .05) thus, gender was not controlled for in all subsequent analyses.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Study Variables.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Autonomy-Supportive Parenting	4.62	.78	—
2. Controlling Parenting	3.23	.91	−.25^a	—
3. Autonomous Major Choice Motivation	4.99	.72	.30^a	−.02	—
4. Controlled Major Choice Motivation	2.39	1.19	−.25^a	.29^a	−.40^a	—
5. Academic Major Satisfaction	4.69	.90	.17^a	−.07	.62^a	−.46^a	—

Note. N = 525. ^ap = .01.

Main Analyses

Measurement model

The hypothesized model was examined using a two-step SEM approach (Weston & Gore, 2006). In the first step, a CFA was conducted to determine whether the observed indicators loaded on their respective latent factors. In the proposed measurement model, each of the five latent variables was indexed by two to three observed indicators. The three perceived autonomy-support and three perceived controlling subscales of the P-PASS were used as the observed indicators of the latent autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting constructs, respectively. Autonomous major choice motivation was modeled with the three autonomous motivation subscales and controlled major choice motivation with the two controlled motivation subscales of the MCMS. To model academic major satisfaction, two 3-item parcels were created as observed indicators (Weston & Gore, 2006). These parcels were created by subjecting the 6 AMSS items to exploratory factor analysis, where the number of factors was fixed to 1. The magnitude of factor loadings was used to assign items to parcels in an alternating manner so that the 2 item parcels within AMSS would have approximately equivalent average loadings (Matsunaga, 2008). Altogether, the five latent variables in the measurement model were represented by 13 observed indicators. Using the established model fit indices, the five-factor model was found to be an excellent fit to the data: (χ² [55, N = 525] = 179.83, p < .001), CFI = .96, TLI = .95, SRMR = .052, RMSEA = .066. The factor loading for each observed indicator was as follows: autonomy-supportive parenting (choices = .82, rationale = .69, acknowledgment = .83), controlling parenting (guilt = .90, threat = .76, pressure = .48), autonomous motivation (identified = .64, integrated = .87, intrinsic = .87), controlled motivation (external = .96, introjected = .81), and academic major satisfaction (parcel 1 = .86, parcel 2 = .91). The mean λ was .80 and all observed indicators significantly loaded onto their corresponding latent constructs (ps < .001). Thus, the five-factor model was submitted to structural model analysis.

Structural model

In the second step, a structural model analysis was carried out to test whether the data fit the full structural model. In this model, four paths were specified: (a) autonomy-supportive parenting to autonomous major choice motivation, (b) controlled parenting to controlled major choice motivation, (c) autonomous major choice motivation to academic major satisfaction, and (d) controlled major choice motivation to academic major satisfaction. The analysis revealed that the hypothesized structural model produced a good fit to the data: (χ² [57, N = 525] = 193.43, p < .001), CFI = .96, TLI = .95, SRMR = .065, RMSEA = .068.

Based on the path coefficients presented in Figure 1, the four hypothesized paths were all significant. Consistent with Hypotheses 1 and 2, the direct paths from autonomy-supportive parenting to autonomous major choice motivation (β = .26; SE = .05; 95% CI [.16, .34]; p < .001) and from controlling parenting to controlled major choice motivation (β = .33; SE = .05; 95% CI [.24, .43]; p < .001) were both significant. In addition, the direct paths from autonomous (β = .62; SE = .05; 95% CI [.52, .71]; p = .001) and controlled major choice motivations (β = –.23; SE = .05; 95% CI [–.33, –.13]; p < .001) to academic major satisfaction were also significant supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4.

Figure 1.

Full Structural Model with Standardized Estimates.

Analyses of the indirect paths

The indirect effects of autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting on academic major satisfaction through autonomous and controlled major choice motivations, respectively, were assessed and the significance of these indirect effects was tested using a bootstrapping technique. First, the indirect path from autonomy-supportive parenting to academic major satisfaction via autonomous major choice motivation was examined. The results indicated that this indirect path was significant (β = .16; SE = .04; 95% CI [.10, .24]; p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 5 was supported. Next, the indirect path from controlling parenting to academic major satisfaction via controlled major choice motivation was also tested. Results confirmed that this path was also significant (β = –.08; SE = .02; 95% CI [–.13, –.04]; p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 6.

Discussion

The current study aimed to contribute to SDT and career literature by examining the association between SDT-derived constructs and academic major satisfaction among Filipino college students. Specifically, it looked into the extent to which autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting serve as antecedents to autonomous and controlled major choice motivations, respectively, and in turn, whether these motivational factors are related to Filipino students’ satisfaction with their academic majors. Overall, the results substantiated the model that highlighted the relations among the foregoing variables.

As expected, all hypothesized associations were significant. First, autonomy-supportive parenting was found to be positively associated with autonomous major choice motivation. In turn, autonomous major choice motivation positively predicted academic major satisfaction. These results imply that the more students experience autonomy support from their parents, the more they tend to choose an academic major out of autonomous motivation, and in turn, the more satisfied they would be with their chosen field of study. This interpretation is supported by previous SDT studies conducted in non-Western contexts (Nie et al., 2015; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005) indicating that the provision of autonomy support promotes well-being through autonomous forms of motivation. Second, controlling parenting was found to be positively related to controlled major choice motivation. Subsequently, this form of motivation negatively predicted academic major satisfaction. These findings suggest that students who perceive their parents as exhibiting strict control over their behaviors are more likely to experience career decision-making difficulties (Koumoundourou et al., 2011), which might push them to choose an academic major they are not interested in. Eventually, they might regret their college major choice and contemplate changing to a different major (Nauta, 2007). Consistent with the current findings, Levpušĉek et al.’s (2017) study suggested that parental psychological control can induce feelings of fear and anxiety and may lead students to engage in externally motivated behaviors. In addition, prior studies (Dietrich & Salmela-Aro, 2013; Guay, 2005) showing an association between controlled motivation and career-related outcomes lend credence to the current findings that emphasized the negative relationship between controlled major choice motivation and academic major satisfaction.

The weak relationship between autonomy-supportive parenting and autonomous major choice motivation is also worth discussing. A possible explanation for this result is that Filipino cultural values are deeply ingrained in the dynamics of Filipino parent-child relationships. Filipino parents, in general, subscribe to childrearing attitudes that emphasize respectfulness, discipline, and obedience (Alampay, 2014). Moreover, these parents define competent children as well-mannered and obedient (Durbrow et al., 2001). To adhere to these definitions, Filipino children are expected to display a high regard for parental authority, fulfill duties and parental expectations, and subjugate their interests to honor family obligations (Alampay & Jocson, 2011; Medina, 2001). As a manifestation, Filipino youth anchor their academic and career choices in their parents’ interests and suggestions (Garcia et al., 2012; Miralao, 2004).

Albeit weak, the positive association between autonomy-supportive parenting and autonomous major choice motivation was found to be significant. This finding is supported by previous non-Western SDT studies (e.g., Maulana et al., 2016) showing that though the predictive value of autonomy support was lower than those of competence and relatedness support, this construct was still a positive predictor of Asian students’ autonomous motivation. Moreover, this significant association could be explained by Filipino parents shifting their childrearing orientations from extreme control and authoritarianism to autonomy, liberalism, and individuality to gradually adapt to the changing times (Medina, 2001). By and large, the present study provides support for SDT and previous findings suggesting that regardless of the cultural values that a society upholds, the satisfaction of the need for autonomy contributes to individuals’ well-being, both in individualist and collectivist cultures (Chirkov et al., 2003).

Interestingly, the performance pressure subscale of the P-PASS weakly loaded on its corresponding latent construct compared with the other two controlling parenting subscales (i.e., guilt induction and use of threats). One probable reason for this low factor loading is that the participants might have interpreted most of the items on this subscale (e.g., “My parents believed that, in order to succeed, I always had to be the best at what I did”) as positive statements reflecting parental encouragement and how important it is for parents to do all that they can do for their children (Jungert et al., 2015). Moreover, the participants’ responses on these items could be a subtle reflection of utang na loob, a Filipino cultural virtue which refers to a deep sense of gratitude or a debt incurred by one’s inner self (Dancel, 2005). Filipino children are expected to express their strong sense of utang na loob toward their parents for bringing them up and caring for them (Alampay & Jocson, 2011) by reciprocating their parents’ sacrifices and meeting familial obligations through their academic and occupational achievements (Alampay, 2014; Medina, 2001). Filipino youth’s willingness to accept a certain level of parental authority on choosing a college major (Bernardo, 2012) and forgo their career-related interests and desires to consider those of their parents (Garcia et al., 2012) could also be a manifestation of utang na loob. In summary, the aforementioned result might have been influenced by cultural factors and how Filipino students attach meanings to some dimensions of parenting (Bernardo & Ujano-Batangan, 2007), which can be explored in future research.

It is also reasonable to bring the strong correlations between Filipino fathers and mothers’ parental behaviors to the fore. A Filipino family is a child-centric social institution in which parents do what is best for their children (Morillo et al., 2013). In terms of their children’s education, Filipino couples make mutual decisions given that their children’s academic achievements are their source of pride and compensation for their sacrifices (Alampay, 2014). Therefore, it can be argued that the similarity in the perceived Filipino parents’ childrearing behaviors could result from their partners’ mutual influence which may be more salient in a period during which their children are confronted by developmental challenges (e.g., high school to college transition; Guay et al., 2018). Previous studies provide support for this argument. For example, Alampay and Jocson (2011) found that although Filipino mothers hold relatively higher progressive childrearing views than Filipino fathers, there are only marginal differences between their authoritarian and progressive parenting attitudes. In Alampay’s (2014) paper, it was mentioned that Filipino couples, particularly those who have more years of education, engage in joint decision-making when it comes to the education of their children. This is evident in the current study as 37.33% of the participants reported that both of their parents are highly educated. Furthermore, numerous studies have demonstrated that children’s perceptions of support (Beiswenger & Grolnick, 2010; Vasalampi et al., 2018) and control (de Haan et al., 2013; Yoo et al., 2013) from mothers and fathers have some similarities. As the provided explanation is tentative, future studies are warranted to further examine the similarities between maternal and paternal childrearing behaviors in collectivist cultures.

Implications for Practice

The current study offers fruitful insights for career counselors to enrich and strengthen their current and future approaches in the provision of career-related services and programs to students. First, since many high school students take into account their parents’ suggestions in choosing which academic major to pursue in college (Miralao, 2004), secondary school counselors may involve not only students but also their parents in a wide range of career development programs. This endeavor is crucial as it may raise awareness about how home environments may positively or negatively affect children’s present and future career developmental outcomes. Second, the present study may serve as a springboard for college career counselors to develop career intervention strategies especially for undergraduate students who have chosen their academic majors out of controlled motivation and those who have low levels of academic major satisfaction. Such strategies may draw these students’ attention to the intrinsic values of the majors they currently pursue. In relation to this, career counselors may invest their efforts in the nurturance of students’ intrinsic motivation upon their admission to their chosen program since their motivation may change over time (Foong et al., 2018). Lastly, career counselors may collaborate with college instructors or professors in potentiating an autonomy-supportive classroom environment to potentially attenuate the negative impact of controlled major choice motivation on students’ academic major satisfaction. This suggestion is drawn from the idea that students who choose an academic major that is incongruent with their personality might eventually express interests and develop skills that are relevant to their choice through their academic experiences (Milsom & Coughlin, 2017). In summary, career counselors, in coordination with parents and teachers, play an essential role in helping students develop interests and skills that are essential in the attainment of higher levels of major satisfaction.

Limitations and Future Research

The current study has several limitations. Firstly, it employed a variable-oriented approach rather than a person-centered approach. Vansteenkiste et al. (2010) argued that a person-centered approach provides a comprehensive understanding of the various types of motivational profiles, which school counselors may find to be informative and useful for the development of programs (e.g., career-based) for different students. Thus, the use of this approach in the analysis of the associations among the observed variables is highly recommended. Secondly, in consideration of the potential common method bias, caution must be exercised in interpreting the results presented in this study as it solely relied on the data collected from the same participants using self-report research instruments. Hence, future research may consider gathering data from multiple sources (e.g., parents, siblings) to avoid common method bias and to examine the possible differential effects of parent-reported and child-perceived parenting behaviors (Garcia et al., 2012) on educational and career variables such as major choice motivations and academic major satisfaction. Thirdly, a large percentage of the participants are freshman college students whose academic and career decisions are more heavily hinged upon contextual influences than students at higher levels. Therefore, future research may recruit participants from all college levels to increase the generalizability of the findings. Lastly, the results of the study are entirely based on a cross-sectional design that precludes any inferences about the possible cause-effect relationships among the introduced variables. As a suggestion, future researchers may conduct experimental studies to investigate such relationships. In addition, a longitudinal study may also be carried out to observe variations among the key variables and their relations over time. Nevertheless, the present study offers rich insights into the interplay among parenting, major choice motivation, and academic major satisfaction.

Conclusion

This study affirms that even in collectivist cultures, fostering an autonomy-supportive home environment may also result in students’ self-determined engagement in career decision-making and satisfaction with their choice of academic major. It also suggests that through controlled major choice motivation, controlling parenting negatively affects students’ satisfaction with their majors. Although the present findings provide a significant contribution to SDT and vocational literature, it is recommended that future research extends the current study to widen and deepen our understanding of career decision-making in collectivist cultures.

Footnotes

Author Note

A portion of this study was completed while the author was in receipt of a graduate scholarship from De La Salle University.

Acknowledgment

The author thanks Michelle Delos Santos, Rodel Halim, Hazel Mendoza, Liezel Moises, Vince Saniel, Donna Sombrea, and Ivy Zarraga for assisting in the administration of the questionnaires and Jan Nicole Juat for assisting in encoding the data.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Randolfh R. Nerona

References

Alampay

L. P.

(2014). Parenting in the Philippines. In Selin

Schvaneveldt

(Eds.), Parenting across cultures: Childrearing, motherhood and fatherhood in non-western cultures (pp. 105–121). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7503-9_9

Alampay

L. P.

Jocson

R. M.

(2011). Attributions and attitudes of mothers and fathers in the Philippines. Parenting: Science and Practice, 11(2–3), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2011.585564

Beiswenger

K. L.

Grolnick

W. S.

(2010). Interpersonal and intrapersonal factors associated with autonomous motivation in adolescents’ after-school activities. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(3), 369–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431609333298

Bernardo

A. B. I.

(2012). Perceived legitimacy of parental control over academic behaviors and adolescent students’ academic adjustment. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(4), 557–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0095-0

Bernardo

A. B. I.

Ujano-Batangan

M. T.

(2007). Gender influences on the relationship between perceived parenting characteristics and goal orientation of Filipino college students. In Bernardo

A. B. I.

Gastardo-Conaco

M. C.

Liwag

M. E. C. D.

(Eds.), The self, relationships, and subjective well-being in Asia: Psychological, social, and cultural perspectives (Vol. 5, 191–207). Kyoyook-Kwahak-Sa Publishing.

Chang

Y. K.

Chen

K. W.

Chi

L. K.

(2016). Effect of autonomy support on self-determined motivation in elementary physical education. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 15(3), 460–466.

Chao

R. K.

Tseng

(2002). Parenting of Asians. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Social conditions and applied parenting (Vol. 4, 2nd ed., pp. 59–93). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chirkov

V. I.

Ryan

R. M.

(2001). Parent and teacher autonomy support in Russian and U.S. adolescents: Common effects on well-being and academic motivation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 618–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032005006

Chirkov

Ryan

R. M.

Kim

Kaplan

(2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.97

10.

Church

A. T.

(1987). Personality research in a non-western culture: The Philippines. Psychological Bulletin, 102(2), 272–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.102.2.272

11.

Church

A. T.

Katigbak

M. S.

(2002). Studying personality traits across cultures: Philippine examples. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 4(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1039

12.

Dancel

(2005). Utang na loob [Debt of goodwill]: A philosophical analysis. In Gripaldo

R. M.

(Ed.), Filipino cultural traits: Claro R. Ceniza lectures (Vol. 4, pp. 109–128). Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.

13.

de Haan

A. D.

Soenens

Deković

Prinzie

(2013). Effects of childhood aggression on parenting during adolescence: The role of parental psychological need satisfaction. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 42(3), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2013.769171

14.

Deci

E. L.

Olafsen

A. H.

Ryan

R. M.

(2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych032516-113108

15.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

16.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In Ryan

R. M.

(Ed.), Oxford library of psychology. The oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85–107). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399820.001.0001

17.

Dietrich

Salmela-Aro

(2013). Parental involvement and adolescents’ career goal pursuit during the post-school transition. Journal of Adolescence, 36(1), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.10.009

18.

Durbrow

E. H.

Peña

L. F.

Masten

Sesma

Williamson

(2001). Mothers’ conceptions of child competence in contexts of poverty: The Philippines, St. Vincent, and the United States. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(5), 438–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/016502501316934860

19.

Fernet

Senécal

Guay

Marsh

Dowson

(2008). The work tasks motivation scale for teachers (WTMST). Journal of Career Assessment, 16(2), 256–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072707305764

20.

Foong

C. C.

Nazri

N. N. N.

Holder

N. A. K. A.

(2018). I am becoming a doctor: Mine or someone else’s will? Or does it even matter? A qualitative investigation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(7), 3253–3267. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/91680

21.

Garcia

P. R. J. M.

Restubog

S. L. D.

Toledano

L. S.

Tolentino

L. R.

Rafferty

A. E.

(2012). Differential moderating effects of student- and parent-rated support in the relationship between learning goal orientation and career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 20(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711417162

22.

Grolnick

W. S.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1997). Internalization within the family: The self-determination theory perspective. In Grusec

J. E.

Kuczynski

(Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 135–161). John Wiley & Sons.

23.

Guay

(2005). Motivations underlying career decision-making activities: The career decision-making autonomy scale (CDMAS). Journal of Career Assessment, 13(1), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072704270297

24.

Guay

Ratelle

C. F.

Duchesne

Dubois

(2018). Mothers’ and fathers’ autonomy-supportive and controlling behaviors: An analysis of interparental contributions. Parenting, 18(1), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2017.1337461

25.

Guay

Senécal

Gauthier

Fernet

(2003). Predicting career indecision: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.50.2.165

26.

Hair

J. F.

Jr Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.

27.

L. t.

Bentler

P. M.

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

28.

Jungert

Landry

Joussemet

Mageau

Gingras

Koestner

(2015). Autonomous and controlled motivation for parenting: Associations with parent and child outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(7), 1932–1942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-9993-5

29.

Koumoundourou

Tsaousis

Kounenou

(2011). Parental influences on Greek adolescents’ career decision-making difficulties. The mediating role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Career Assessment, (19)2, 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072710385547

30.

Levpušček

M. P.

Rauch

Komidar

(2017). Individuation in relation to parents as a predictor of career goals and career optimism in emerging adults. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 59(2), 146–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12421

31.

Little

R. J. A.

(1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. https://doi.org/10.2307/2290157

32.

Lonsdale

Hodge

Rose

E. A.

(2008). The behavioral regulation in sport questionnaire (BRSQ): Instrument development and initial validity evidence. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(3), 323–355. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.30.3.323

33.

Madison

Hopp

Santana

A. D.

Stansberry

(2018). A motivational perspective on mass communication students’ satisfaction with their major: Investigating antecedents and consequences. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 73(1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695816687408

34.

Mageau

G. A.

Ranger

Joussemet

Koestner

Moreau

Forest

(2015). Validation of the perceived parental autonomy support scale (P-PASS). Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 47(3), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039325

35.

Matsunaga

(2008). Item parceling in structural equation modeling: A primer. Communication Methods and Measures, 2(4), 260–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450802458935

36.

Maulana

Helms-Lorenz

Irnidayanti

van de Grift

(2016). Autonomous motivation in the Indonesian classroom: Relationship with teacher support through the lens of self-determination theory. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(3), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0282-5

37.

Medina

B. T. G.

(2001). The Filipino family (2nd ed.). University of the Philippines Press.

38.

Milsom

Coughlin

(2017). Examining person–environment fit and academic major satisfaction. Journal of College Counseling, 20(3), 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocc.12073

39.

Miralao

V. A.

(2004). Filipino youth in special high schools: A survey of senior students at the Philippine science high school, Philippine high school for the arts, and OB. Montessori high school (Vol. 2). Philippine Social Science Council.

40.

Morillo

H. M.

Capuno

J. J.

Mendoza

A. M.

(2013). Views and values on family among Filipinos: An empirical exploration. Asian Journal of Social Science, 41(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685314-12341278

41.

Nauta

M. M.

(2007). Assessing college students’ satisfaction with their academic majors. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(4), 446–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072707305762

42.

Nie

Chua

B. L.

Yeung

A. S.

Ryan

R. M.

Chan

W. Y.

(2015). The Importance of autonomy support and the mediating role of work motivation for well-being: Testing self-determination theory in a Chinese work organisation. International Journal of Psychology, 50(4): 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12110

43.

Oga-Baldwin

W. L. Q.

Nakata

(2015). Structure also supports autonomy: Measuring and defining autonomy-supportive teaching in Japanese elementary foreign language classes. Japanese Psychological Research, 57(3), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12077

44.

Pesch

K. M.

Larson

L. M.

Surapaneni

(2016). Parental autonomy support and career well-being: Mediating effects of perceived academic competence and volitional autonomy. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(3), 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715599392

45.

Rosseel

(2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

46.

Salazar-Clemena

R. M.

(2002). Family ties and peso signs: Challenges for career counseling in the Philippines. Career Development Quarterly, 50(3), 246−256. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2002.tb00900.x

47.

Schenkenfelder

Frickey

E. A.

Larson

L. M.

(2020). College environment and basic psychological needs: Predicting academic major satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 67(2), 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000380

48.

Schlomer

G. L.

Bauman

Card

N. A.

(2010). Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018082

49.

Shrout

P. E.

Bolger

(2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422

50.

Skatova

Ferguson

(2014). Why do different people choose different university degrees? Motivation and the choice of degree. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1244), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01244

51.

Soenens

Park

S. Y.

Mabbe

Vansteenkiste

Chen

Van Petegem

Brenning

(2018). The Moderating role of vertical collectivism in South-Korean adolescents’ perceptions of and responses to autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(1080), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01080

52.

Vansteenkiste

Niemiec

C. P.

Soenens

(2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In Urdan

T. C.

Karabenick

S. A.

(Eds.), The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement. In Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 16A, pp. 105–165). Emerald Group Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-7423(2010)000016A007

53.

Vansteenkiste

Zhou

Lens

Soenens

(2005). Experiences of autonomy and control among Chinese learners: Vitalizing or immobilizing? Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 468–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.468

54.

Vasalampi

Kiuru

Salmela-Aro

(2018). The role of a supportive interpersonal environment and education-related goal motivation during the transition beyond upper secondary education. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 55, 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.09.001

55.

Wang

(2008). Motivation and English achievement: An exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of a new measure for Chinese students of English learning. North American Journal of Psychology, 10(3), 633–646.

56.

Weston

Gore

P. A.

(2006). A Brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006286345

57.

Yoo

Feng

Day

R. D.

(2013). Adolescents’ empathy and prosocial behavior in the family context: A longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(12), 1858–1872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9900-6