









































Communication, Society and Media 
ISSN 2576-5388 (Print) ISSN 2576-5396 (Online) 

Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm 

70 
 

Original Paper 

Motivation and Academic Performance: An Inter-country 

Comparison 
Lewis R. Gale1* & Clifford Nowell2 

1 University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA, USA 
2 Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, China 
* Lewis Gale, University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA, USA 

 
Received: April 9, 2020         Accepted: April 21, 2020          Online Published: July 7, 2020 

doi:10.22158/csm.v3n3p70                      URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/csm.v3n3p70 

 
Abstract 

The objective of this paper is to explore the impact of amotivation on academic performance and to test 

whether the impact of motivation on academic performance differs across students from China and the 

U.S. Using data from Chinese and U.S. students located in their home countries, we find amotivation 

negatively impacts academic performance of both groups of students. We also show that external 

motivation is positively associated with academic achievement. While these findings are consistent with 

results from previous studies, we extend the understanding on the relationship between motivation and 

academic performance by demonstrating that the magnitude of the detrimental impact of amotivation 

differs between students in the two countries and that the positive impact of higher levels of external 

motivation provides similar benefits for both groups of students. 

Keywords 

motivation, academic performance, self-determination theory  

 
1. Introduction 

The relationship between motivation and academic performance is well documented. Students with 

higher levels of internal and well-regulated external motivation tend to perform better than students 

with lower levels of internal and well-regulated motivation. Amotivation is almost universally shown to 

be correlated with poor academic performance. These results have been shown to true for students from 

all areas of the world (Baker, 2004; Amrai, Motlagh, Zalani, & Parhon, 2011; Sikhwari, 2014; Hsieh, 

2014; Kusurkar, Cate, Vos, Westers, & Croiset, 2012; Rienties, Beausaert, Grohnert, Niemantsverdriet, 

& Kommers, 2012). 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
71 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Although the direct relationship between autonomous motivation and academic performance appears to 

be robust, we are not aware of any other research that simultaneously uses a single, highly reliable 

questionnaire, to compare how changes in different types of motivation impacts academic the 

performance of students studying in different countries. In this paper, we seek to answer two questions: 

First, we ask if the motivational orientation is similar for students from different countries. Second, we 

ask if the impact of motivation on academic performance is consistent for students from different 

countries. If different motivational orientations do exist for students from different parts of the world, 

or if the impact of amotivation on academic performance does differ between students from different 

parts of the world, awareness of these differences may help instructors who struggle with how to 

motivate students in a global classroom. To answer these questions, we gathered data from two groups 

of university students studying business-related disciplines; one group in China and one in the U.S. 

Identical surveys were administered using the same protocols in November of 2016 at a university in 

Shanghai, China, and at a university in Ogden, Utah. English language surveys were administered by a 

native English speaker in the U.S., and Mandarin language surveys were conducted by a native 

Mandarin speaker in China. More than 650 students from the two universities were surveyed resulting 

in 560 usable observations. We find that Chinese students have significantly greater levels of 

amotivation and internal motivation than their U.S. counterparts. We also find that higher levels of 

external motivation are associated with higher academic performance in both groups of students, and 

that higher levels of amotivation are detrimental to student performance in both groups. We further find 

significant differences in the magnitude of the impact of amotivation on academic achievement. The 

decline in performance from increased levels of amotivation is greater for the Chinese students than for 

the U.S. students. Our results suggest that the impact of motivational orientation on academic 

performance is more complicated than has previously been thought. Although our results are not as 

robust with regard to why motivational orientation affects academic performance differently for the two 

groups, our results are consistent with some of the general findings in the literature. Furthermore, we 

conclude that this topic deserves a deeper investigation to determine whether differences in cultural 

norms, teaching methodologies, student experiences, or other as-yet-identified factors are responsible 

for these differences. 

Our paper is presented in five sections. In Section Two of this paper we summarize the theories of 

motivational behaviour most relevant to our study and describe what we know about how motivation 

differs among students around the world. We focus on data and estimation methods in Section Three 

along with descriptions of the data gathered and highlight some of the differences between the U.S. and 

Chinese students. In Section Four we present our results and conclusions are contained in Section Five. 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
72 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

2. Methods 

2.1 Motivational Behaviour 

A significant body of research has investigated the relationship between the motivations of university 

students and their level of educational success (Coutts, Gilleard, & Baglin, 2011). Much of this 

discussion began with an analysis of how internal and external motivation are related to student success 

(Kasser & Ryan, 1996), but as our understanding of motivation has matured, the literature examining 

student motivation and educational outcomes has migrated from describing motivation as internal vs. 

external to describing motivation as autonomous vs. controlled (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000, 2008). 

Deci and Ryan (2008) explain that “autonomous motivation involves behaving with a full sense of 

volition and choice, whereas controlled motivation involves behaving with the experience of pressure 

and demand toward specific outcomes that comes from forces external to the self” (p. 14). This 

description represents the essence of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) which suggests that (a) both 

internal motivation and well-internalized external motivation define autonomous motivation, and (b) 

external motivation which has not been internalized defines controlled motivation. SDT recognizes that 

external motivation, to a degree, can be internalized. 

Ryan and Deci (2007) divide external motivation into four categories: external regulation, introjection, 

identification, and integration. These four levels of seemingly external motivation differ in the degree 

to which they may become integrated into an individual’s perception of themselves. External regulation 

is the least autonomous of the categories of external motivation, and integrated orientation is the most 

autonomous. In the middle are introjection and identification. Introjection occurs when an individual 

adopts a goal without accepting it completely as their own; they accept the goal, but do not truly 

internalize it. The objective is no longer completely controlled and may have an autonomous 

component. Identification occurs when an individual recognizes the importance of an outside goal and 

works to achieve that goal because they believe the goal is important. Finally, the least controlled 

category of external motivation is integration. Integration occurs when the objective is truly 

internalized by the individual. In this way, what was external is now fully internalized. 

Examples of external motivation may be the case of studying for a test because of a fear of punishment 

if the test result is not viewed as satisfactory by a parent or other external source. Introjected motivation 

may occur when a student observes that successful students join clubs and she or he asks questions 

about joining a club. The student may recognize that acting in a specific way leads to success. Put 

simply, the student may partially adopt some external beliefs as his or her own beliefs. 

Integrated regulation refers to activities that are completely internalized, even though these activities 

may have once been less autonomous in nature. Evidence does appear to support the notion that 

well-regulated motivation is beneficial. In a study conducted in Taiwan, Chen and Kraklow (2015) 

found that students who are characterized as having high levels of autonomous motivation or high 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
73 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

levels of well-regulated external motivation exhibit a greater level of engagement in the learning 

process than students with other motivational orientations. Consistent with SDT, this relationship was 

stronger for the group with high levels of autonomous motivation. 

Amotivation is defined as the absence of motivation. Students who are amotivated are more likely to 

act without intention (Deci & Ryan, 1991) and to have less concern with outcomes in general. 

Amotivation may result from a belief that the activity does not matter (Ryan, 1995), a sense of 

hopelessness (Bandura, 1986), or from low self-esteem (Peterson & Seligman, 1984). It is amotivation 

that is most often associated with low academic outcomes (Baker, 2004). 

One important aspect of SDT is that autonomous motivation is described as a stock, where the total 

accumulated value is comprised of intrinsic and well-internalized extrinsic motivation. Because the 

accumulated value of autonomous motivation is fluid, students may be internally motivated in some 

aspects of their lives and externally motivated in other aspects (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006). In 

other words, a student’s motivation can change. Because motivational is not fixed, it is clear that both 

university administrators and educators have the ability to influence levels of motivation and 

amotivation by creating a meaningful curriculum and providing instruction in a manner that engages 

students. 

Creating clear connections between traditional measures of academic performance and learning 

outcomes that are important to students may generate higher levels of autonomous motivation and 

reduce amotivation (Deci & Ryan, 2006). For some students, this may mean linking academic 

coursework to economic success, but to others it may mean connecting academic outcomes to social 

justice interests. This connection highlights the importance of choosing the right field of study for 

students. If a student chooses a major they are not personally committed to, academic success may be 

less likely than if the student is given more time to explore before choosing a major field of study. By 

understanding what is important to students, and connecting these items to educational outcomes, we 

have the possibility to increase levels of motivation and reduce amotivation. 

Studies of motivation of international students have primarily focused on study-abroad students and 

international students in a different host country. Areepattamannil et al. (2011) explored motivation and 

academic achievement of Indian immigrant adolescents in Canada and compared to learners in India. 

Compared to their peers in India, the authors find that Indian immigrant adolescents in Canada had 

higher intrinsic motivation and academic achievement; however, Indian adolescents in India had higher 

extrinsic motivation than the Indian immigrants. In an analysis of motivations of domestic and 

international students studying abroad in a private educational institution in Singapore, Chue and Nie 

(2016) found that international students had a higher level of intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, 

external regulation, deep learning and surface learning, but a lower level of amotivation compared to 

domestic students. Furthermore, the authors found that the same level of perceived psychological needs 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
74 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

support would result in a higher level of intrinsic motivation and a lower level of amotivation for 

international students. Bulgan and Çiftçi (2017) studied the academic performance and adaptation of 

married international students. They found that international students who have (i) higher satisfaction 

in their marriages and (ii) higher academic self-efficacy are more prone to have better adaptation 

processes. 

While comparative studies on the differences in motivation between students from different regions of 

the world is scarce, a growing literature on the sources of motivation and academic achievement of 

Chinese students has made important contributions. Chen, Lee and Stevenson (1996) examined test 

scores of students from kindergarten-age through the eleventh grade from Beijing, China, Taipei, 

Taiwan, Sendai, Japan, and Minneapolis and Chicago in the U.S. To account for the differences in the 

high-level performance of Chinese students, the authors conclude that traditional Chinese cultural 

factors about human beings, the role of family involvement in promotion of child progress, and 

dedication to hard work are associated with performance. 

Chow and Chu (2007) explored the orientation of achievement motivation based on parental 

involvement and expectations as well as the traditional Chinese virtue of filial piety defined as a respect 

for one’s parents and ancestors. From a survey of secondary students from Hong Kong, they found that 

engaged parental involvement and feedback along with filial piety have a positive impact on motivation 

for academic achievement among students. Conversely, they found that a lack of parental feedback and 

lack of caring significantly contribute to academic amotivation among students. He and Hutson (2018) 

used an appreciative education framework to evaluate the strengths of Chinese international students 

and the potential for support during their academic transition. From surveys, interviews, and focus 

groups, the authors found that an obligation to family support from home as well as motivation and 

commitment to success are positively related to acculturation success. When evaluating information 

from just the focus groups, however, Chinese students did not identify cultural aspects and family 

support as strengths for acculturation. 

While it is argued that there are other factors influencing the motivation of international study abroad 

students, some research exists on the comparison of motivation and academic performance of student 

groups in their respective native countries. A tool developed by Vallerand et al. (1992) to assess the 

various dimensions of motivation among a sample of Canadian college students was the Academic 

Motivation Scale (AMS). Subsequent research employing the AMS, such as Vallerand et al. (1993), 

Cokley (2000), Cokley, K. O., Bernard, N., Cunningham, D., and Motoike, J. (2001), and Ratelle, Guay, 

Vallerand, Larose, and Senécal (2007), examined the validity of the AMS in different settings and 

countries. Yet, we do not find any examples in the literature that use the AMS motivation survey to 

compare the performance of both U.S. students with international students in the same analysis. Our 

paper is notable for contributing to the existing literature by attempting fill this void. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
75 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

2.2 Data 

In order to collect data on student well-being we surveyed students at two large, public universities, one 

located in Ogden, Utah, and the other located in Shanghai, China. Although the survey method used in 

this study comparing Chinese and US students appears to be the method predominately used in 

comparable research, (Zhang-Wu, 2018) other methodologies could have been employed. Using 

surveys to gather data is an efficient way of gathering data for quantitative studies such as ours, 

although other research methods are used. Mixed methods which include case studies and detailed 

personal interviews can provide a narrative to help interpret quantitative results. 

One important consideration that lead us to use a survey method to gather data for our study was the 

need for consistency with prior research examining the impact of academic motivation on student 

success. Because the most critical piece of information needed for our analysis is a measure of capable 

of differentiating between the subscales of internal and external motivation as defined in SDT, we used 

the twenty-eight question Academic Motivation Scale (AMS-28) to gather data on student’s motivation 

in each location. As explored by Vallerand et al. (1992, 1993), the AMS-28 includes seven subscales 

which are designed to measure three types of intrinsic motivation (to know, to accomplish, and to 

experience stimulation), three types of extrinsic motivation (extrinsic motivation-identified regulation, 

extrinsic motivation-introjected regulation, and external motivation-external regulation), and 

amotivation. While the AMS-28 does not have a subcategory to measure external motivation-integrated 

regulation, it is otherwise very closely linked to SDT theory. Almost universally, the AMS-28 is given 

as part of a survey instrument which also asks for demographic information and other data related to a 

specific research. As a survey instrument, the AMS-28 has been shown to have high internal and 

test-retest validity (Vallerand et al., 1992). Our choice of using a survey to gather data for this study 

was based on how the AMS has been historically used, and the reliability of the data obtained through 

using the survey. 

Table 1 presents the mean level of academic motivation for U.S. and Chinese students using two 

different motivational constructs. First, we report the mean values for the six subscales of academic 

motivation measured by the AMS-28 for the Chinese and U.S. students. Second, we collapse the scales 

into three larger categories: internal academic motivation, external academic motivation, and 

amotivation. No significant differences between the U.S. and Chinese students were found for the 

external regulation subscales of the AMS-28 or for external regulation in general. Significant 

differences were observed for the internal motivation subscales of the AMS-28 and for the general 

measure of internal motivation. Students from the U.S. showed significantly lower levels of internal 

motivation than their Chinese counterparts. Although we cannot be certain of why this is the case, it 

may be explained by cultural norms, academic experiences, or the specific characteristics of the 

universities included in this study. The university in the U.S. is an open enrolment university with a 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
76 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

student body more consistent with a community college population. The Chinese university is a 

mid-level, ranked university, with a student body that has performed relatively well on the college entry 

examinations. 

Table 1 also shows that Chinese students in our data set have significantly higher amounts of academic 

amotivation than the U.S. students. Again, although we cannot be certain why, this may reflect cultural 

differences or differences in the educational experiences. The earnings of college graduates are more 

closely linked to university reputation than academic performance (Kong, 2017) in China as compared 

with the U.S. Because of this, at the university level, the economic benefit of higher levels of academic 

performance is greater in the U.S. than in China. This is very likely to increase the level of amotivation 

in Chinese university students relative to U.S. university students. Because amotivation is also linked to 

the classroom experience, differences in classroom pedagogy may also contribute to levels of 

amotivation. 

 

Table 1. Motivation Levels 

Motivation Type Mean All Students Mean US Students 
Mean Chinese 

Students 

Desire to Know* Internal 5.24 5.03 (1.53) 5.34 (1.06) 

Desire to Explore* Internal 4.51 3.84 (2.31) 4.81 (1.13) 

Desire to Achieve* Internal 4.75 4.47 (1.68) 4.89 (1.12) 

Average Internal* 

Motivation 
Internal 4.84 4.45 (1.56) 5.01 (0.95) 

Identified Regulation External 5.50 5.48 (1.48) 5.52 (1.11) 

Introjected Regulation External 4.83 4.88 (1.57) 4.81 (1.35) 

External Regulation External 5.62 5.58 (1.49) 5.64 (0.99) 

Average External 

Motivation 
External 5.32 5.31 (1.34) 5.32 (0.99) 

Amotivation*  2.91 2.38 (1.82) 3.16 (1.61) 

Sample Size  547 171 376 

*Indicates significant differences in means between U.S. and Chinese students at p<.05. 

Standard deviations are in parentheses. 

 

2.3 Analysis 

We examine two sets of empirical models; first using GPA as the dependent variable and second using 

ZSCORE as the dependent variable. For each dependent variable we use two different specifications 

for measuring motivation which were outlined in our discussion of Table 2. Because the universities in 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
77 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

this study have vastly different grading policies, we use two different methods to measure academic 

performance. In China, the university included in the study enforces a grade distribution that mandates 

a maximum of 20% “A” grades and a 40% maximum for “B” grades, whereas the U.S. university has 

no such restriction. The first way we measure academic performance is by using each student’s GPA. In 

the second method, we use the z-score for each student’s GPA. The z-score measures the number of 

standard deviations between an individual student’s GPA and the average GPA for the student’s home 

university. By using the z-score we focus on the standardized differences in grades at the university 

rather than the absolute grade point average. Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations of all 

data used for our analysis. Again, we provide three columns of information: all subjects, Chinese 

subjects and U.S. subjects. As can be seen from the Table 2, GPAs are significantly higher in the U.S., 

which reflects the forced grade distribution. 

 

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations 

Variable Name 
Mean 

All Students 

Mean 

US Students 

Mean 

Chinese Students 

GPA* 2.87 (0.67) 3.23 (0.47) 2.70 (0.69) 

ZSCORE 0.00 (1.01) 0.00 (0.98) 0.00 (1.03) 

STUDY* 21.46 (19.27) 10.41 (8.18) 26.70 (20.57) 

WORK* 11.11 (13.70) 23.37 (13.82) 5.30 (9.03) 

TMALE* 0.44(0.49) 0.54 (0.50) 0.39 (0.49) 

BUSINESS* 0.49 (0.50) 0.29 (0.45) 0.59 (0.49) 

FRESHMAN* 0.14 (0.34) 0.22 (0.42) 0.10 (0.26) 

SATISFY* 6.65 (1.92) 6.53 (2.12) 6.71 (1.81) 

USA 0.32 (0.47) 1 0 

SPENDLOW* 0.42 (.49) 0.24 (0.42) 0.51 (0.50) 

AGE* 20.77(3.82) 23.44 (5.76) 19.52 (0.96) 

N 532 171 376 

*Indicates significant differences in means between U.S. and Chinese students at p<.05. Standard deviations are 

in parentheses. 

 

In addition to information on academic motivation and academic performance, we gathered data on 

student demographic information on a wide range of items that have been shown to be correlated with 

academic performance. We gather self-reported data on the number of hours students study (STUDY) 

and the number of hours the student is employed per week (WORK). On average, the Chinese students 

spend twice as much time studying per week than do the U.S. students, and the U.S. students spend 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
78 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

more than twice the time at work. We anticipate that STUDY will be directly related to GPA 

(Richardson, Abraham, & Bond, 2012) and that as the number of work hours increases GPA will 

eventually decline (Dundes & Marx, 2006). We gathered information on the student’s age (AGE) and 

whether the student is male or female (MALE=1 if the student is male and zero otherwise). The 

Chinese students are significantly younger than the U.S. students, which reflects the admission patterns 

and different missions of the two universities. We have no a priori expectation for age. Numerous 

studies (Duckworth & Seligman, 2006; Fortin, Marcotte, Diallo, Potvin, & Royer, 2013) have shown 

that females perform better than their male counterparts in all levels of schooling and in many areas of 

the world, thus we expect MALE to be negatively correlated with GPA. To control for different grading 

practices in different subject areas, we included dummy variables to differentiate the student’s major 

field of study. We categorized responses into seven different academic colleges: Business, Social 

Science, Arts and Humanities, Science, Engineering and Technology, Education, and Health and 

Medicine. One area, Business, was found to have a significant correlation with GPA, so we include a 

variable BUSINESS to distinguish business students from all other students. The variable BUSINESS 

takes on a value of one if the student is majoring in a business-related discipline and is zero otherwise. 

Because it is difficult to gather data on student income, we employed a proxy for income by asking 

students “Approximately how much money do you spend each month excluding rent and school-related 

expenses?” Students responded to this question on a three category likert-scale. All spending amounts 

were defined in the local currency. Using this information, we created the variable SPENDLOW to 

differentiate students with low spending levels from students spending at the middle and upper levels. 

We also included a question on the student survey to measure a student’s level of satisfaction with life 

at school (SATISFY). Students answer this question on a 1 (extremely unsatisfied) to 10 (extremely 

satisfied) scale. Chinese students indicate a slightly greater level of satisfaction with their school life 

than U.S. students. Income and academic performance are widely believed to be directly related and 

studies often show (Nowell, 2017) that happiness and academic performance are positively correlated. 

We also gathered data on the student’s year in school. We believe that as a student progresses in school 

their GPAs will increase. Freshmen in particular are much more likely to struggle at school and are 

more likely to drop out of school due to their academic struggles. Based on this, we expect freshman to 

have lower GPAs than all other students. We created a variable, FRESHMAN to control for the 

expected GPA differences in freshman students. The variable FRESHMAN takes on a value of one if a 

student is in their first year of school and is zero otherwise. We did not gather data on race or ethnicity, 

as the differences between schools overwhelms any within school variation on race and ethnicity. 

We also include a dummy variable to differentiate the two schools. The variable USA equals one for the 

U.S. university and is zero for the university in China. We use this variable to account for differences in 

the Chinese and U.S. students not controlled for by our other explanatory variables. This dummy 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
79 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

variable may measure cultural or institutional differences. This variable may capture different 

admissions policies or different levels of student services, or it may reflect unmeasured differences 

between U.S. and Chinese students. 

 

3. Results 

We report our regression results, with our two different dependent variables GPA and ZSCORE, in 

Table 3. Our results are generally consistent across the different motivational constructs and across the 

different measures of academic performance. As expected, STUDY is consistently positively related to 

academic performance. The variable WORK is negatively related to academic success, although the 

impact is not significant. Although males are performing at a lower level than females, this impact is 

also not significant. 

Grades given in the fields of business and economics are significantly lower than other disciplines. As 

expected, the estimated coefficient on FRESHMAN was negative and significant. Consistent with past 

evidence, we found that students who were more satisfied with their life at school earned significantly 

higher grades than students who were less satisfied with their life at school. 

Our results with respect to motivational orientation also appear to be robust. For all measures of 

motivation and for all measures of academic performance, Table 3 indicates that amotivation is 

consistently related to lower academic performance for both Chinese and U.S. students. In addition, the 

coefficient associated with interaction term USAMOTIVE is consistently positive and significant, 

indicating that the negative impact of increasing levels of amotivation is more harmful to the Chinese 

students than to U.S. students. 

Table 3 also shows that higher levels of external and internal motivation appear to be associated with 

higher levels of academic performance. Although both variables appear to have a direct relationship 

with academic performance, the estimated coefficients associated with the variable EXTERNAL are 

consistently significant and the coefficients associated with the variable INTERNAL are always 

insignificant. When we interacted the variable USA with EXTERNAL and INTERNAL, no evidence 

was found to suggest that the effects of increases in external or internal motivation were different for 

Chinese and U.S. students. 

Finally, when we examine the impact of all of the subscales of external and internal motivation on 

academic performance our results are inconclusive. Although the estimated coefficient on IKNOW 

(internal desire to know) is negative and significant at a p-value of 0.10, the estimated coefficient on 

IACHIEVE (internal desire to achieve) is positive and significant with a p-value of = 0.10. The 

evidence that these variables are important is not overwhelming at these levels of significance. In 

addition, when we interact the variable USA with IKNOW and IACHIEVE, the variables did not 

contribute any explanatory power to the regression equation. Neither interaction term had a t-statistic of 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
80 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

greater than 1.0 so including these interaction terms decreases the adjusted R2 of the equation. Because 

of this, these interaction terms were not included in the final analysis. 

 

Table 3. Regression Results 

 

 

Dependent Variable: GPA Dependent Variable: ZSCORE 

Variable Name Estimated 

Coefficient 

Standard error Estimated 

Coefficient 

Standard Error 

Constant 2.04** 0.15 -1.14** 0.390 

STUDY 0.005** 0.0016 0.007** 0.003 

WORK -0.003 0.0025 -0.005 0.004 

MALE -0.05 0.05 -0.081 -0.086 

BUSINESS -0.15** 0.06 -0.190** 0.09 

FRESHMAN -0.25** 0.08 -0.27** 0.13 

SATISFY 0.05** 0.01 0.07** 0.02 

SPENDLOW 0.12** 0.06 0.20 0.09 

USA 0.50** 0.13 0.55 0.55 

INTERNAL 0.007 0.041 0.007 0.07 

USAINTERNAL -0.004 0.056 0.008 0.09 

EXTERNAL 0.107** 0.042 0.16** 0.07 

USAEXTERNAL -0.088 0.063 -0.11 0.10 

AMOTIVE -0.08** 0.02 -0.12** 0.04 

USAMOTIVE 0.08** 0.03 0.12** 0.06 

N=532     

R-squared 0.25  0.18  

F (p-value) 11.51(.000)  6.80(.000)  

*Significant at p < .10 

**Significant at p < .05 

***Significant at p <.01 

 

The research question we ask in this paper is whether the impact of motivation on academic 

performance is different for U.S. and Chinese students. We found no differences in the effect of internal 

or external motivation on academic achievement between U.S. and Chinese students. We did find, 

however, that changes in amotivation do impact U.S. and Chinese students differently. Higher levels of 

amotivation result in a greater reduction in academic performance for the Chinese students. Our 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
81 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

analysis reveals that although both U.S. and Chinese have a reduced level of academic performance 

with higher levels of amotivation, the impact of increased amotivation is more detrimental to Chinese 

students than U.S. students. The latter result appears to be consistent with the impact of a lack of 

parental caring and feedback on academic amotivation among Chinese students as described in Chow 

and Chu (2007). When considered in the context of filial piety, this impact is important in 

understanding how motivational orientation impacts academic outcomes. To be sure, we are not certain 

if the differences in the impact of amotivation are driven primarily by the result of cultural differences 

or institutional differences and should be the subject of further study. 

 

4. Discussion 

The objective of this paper was to explore the impact of amotivation on academic performance and to 

test whether the impact of motivation on academic performance differs across students from China and 

the U.S. With data from Chinese and U.S. students located in their home countries, we find amotivation 

negatively impacts academic performance of both groups of students. We also show that external 

motivation is positively associated with academic achievement. While these findings are consistent 

with results from previous studies, we extend the understanding on the relationship between motivation 

and academic performance by demonstrating that the magnitude of the detrimental impact of 

amotivation differs between students in the two countries and that the positive impact of higher levels 

of external motivation provides similar benefits for both groups of students. 

Although we have learned that amotivation has a more detrimental effect on the academic performance 

of students in China than on students in the U.S., our use of the AMS motivational survey does not 

concisely lead to a determination that these effects are the result of different cultural norms or are 

created through institutional policies and practices. These findings suggest that additional research is 

needed to determine if institutions, cultures, or other confounding variables are responsible for the 

different effects of amotivation on student performance. 

 

References 

Amrai, K., Motlagh, S. E, Zalani, H. A., & Parhon, H. (2011). The relationship between 

academicmotivation and academic achievement students. Procedia Social and Behavioral 

Sciences, 15, 399-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.111 

Areepattamannil, S., Freeman, J. G., & Klinger, D. A. (2011). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, 

and academic achievement among Indian adolescents in Canada and India. Social Psychology of 

Education, 14(3), 427-439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9155-1 

Baker, S. R. (2004). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational orientations: their role in university 

adjustment, stress, well-being, and subsequent academic performance. Current Psychology, 23(3), 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
82 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

189-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-004-1019-9 

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Clinical 

and Social Psychology, 4(3), 359-373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359 

Bulgan, G., & Çiftçi, A. (2017). Psychological adaptation, marital satisfaction, and academic 

self-efficacy of international students. Journal of International Students, 7(3), 687-702. 

Cankaya, E. M., Liew, J., & de Freitas, C. P. P. (2018). Curiosity and Autonomy as Factors That 

Promote Personal Growth in the Cross-cultural Transition Process of International Students. 

Journal of International Students, 8(4), 1694-1708. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v8i4.225 

Chen, C. S., Lee, S. Y., & Stevenson, H. W. (1996). Academic achievement and motivation of Chinese 

students: A cross-national perspective. In Growing up the Chinese way: Chinese child and 

adolescent development (pp. 66-91). Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.  

Chen, Y. E., & Kraklow, D. (2015). Taiwanese College Students’ motivation and engagement for 

English learning in the context of internationalization at home: A comparison of students in EMI 

and non-EMI programs. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(1), 46-64. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315314533607 

Chirkov, V., Vansteenkiste, M., Tao, R., & Lynch, M. (2007). The role of self-determined motivation 

and goals for study abroad in the adaptation of international students. International Journal of 

Intercultural Relations, 31(2), 199-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.03.002 

Chow, S. S. Y., & Chu, M. H. T. (2007). The impact of filial piety and parental involvement on 

academic achievement motivation in Chinese secondary school students. Asian Journal of 

Counselling, 14(1), 91-124. 

Chue, K. L, & Nie, Y. (2016). International students’ motivation and learning approach: A comparison 

with local students. Journal of International Students, 6(3), 678-699. 

Cokley, K. O. (2000). Examining the validity of the academic motivation scale by comparing scale 

construction to self-determination theory. Psychological Reports, 86, 560-564. 

https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2000.86.2.560 

Cokley, K. O., Bernard, N., Cunningham, D., & Motoike, J. (2001). A psychometric investigation of the 

academic motivation scale using a United States sample. Measurement and Evaluation in 

Counseling and Development, 34, 109-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2001.12069027 

Coutts, R., Gilleard, W., & Baglin, R. (2011). Evidence for the impact of assessment on mood and 

motivation in first-year students. Studies in Higher Education, 36(3), 291-300. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.523892 

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. 

New York: Plenum Publishing Co. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7 

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
83 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. 

https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across 

life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14-23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14 

Duckworth, A., & Seligman, M. (2006). Self-discipline gives girls the edge: gender in self-discipline, 

grades, and achievement test scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 198-208. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.198 

Dundes, L., & Marx, J. (2006). Balancing work and academics in college: why do students working 

10-19 hours per week excel? Journal of College Student Retention, 8(1), 107-120. 

https://doi.org/10.2190/7UCU-8F9M-94QG-5WWQ 

Fortin, L., Marcotte, D., Diallo, T., Potvin, P. & Royer, E. (2013). A multidimensional model of school 

dropout from an 8-year longitudinal study in a general high school population. European Journal 

of Psychology of Education, 28(2), 563-583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0129-2 

He, Y., & Hutson, B. (2018). Exploring and leveraging Chinese international students’ strengths for 

success. Journal of International Students, 8(1), 87-108. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v8i1.153 

Hsieh, T. L. (2014). Motivation matters? The relationship among different types of learning motivation, 

engagement behaviors and learning outcomes of undergraduate students in Taiwan. Higher 

Education, 68(3), 417-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9720-6 

Kasser, T., & Ryan, M. R. (1996). Further examining the American dream: differential correlates of 

intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 280-287. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296223006 

Kong, J. (2017) Determinants of graduates’ job opportunities and initial wages in China. Industrial 

Labour Review, 156(1), 99-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2015.00030.x 

Kusurkar, R. A., Cate, T., Vos, C. M. P., Westers, P., & Croiset, G. (2013). How motivation affects 

academic performance: A structural equation modelling analysis. Advances in Health Sciences 

Education, 18(1), 57-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-012-9354-3 

Moneta, G. B., & Siu, C. M. (2002). Trait intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, academic performance, 

and creativity in Hong Kong college students. Journal of College Student Development, 43(5), 

664-683. 

Nowell, C. (2017). The influence of motivational orientation on the satisfaction of university students. 

Teaching in Higher Education, 27(7), 855-866. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1319811 

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. (1984). Casual explanations as a risk factor for depression: Theory and 

evidence. Psychological Review, 91(3), 347-374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.347 

Ramsay, S., Barker, M., & Jones, E. (1999). Academic adjustment and learning processes: a 

comparison of international and local students in first-year university. Higher Education Research 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
84 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

& Development, 18(1), 129-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436990180110 

Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senécal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled, and 

amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 99(4), 734-746. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.734 

Rienties, B., Beausaert, S., Grohnert, T., Niemantsverdriet, S., & Kommers, P. (2012). Understanding 

academic performance of international students: the role of ethnicity, academic and social 

Integration. Higher Education, 63(6), 685-700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9468-1 

Ren, J., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2012). International graduate students’ academic performance: what are the 

influencing factors? Journal of International Students, 2(2), 135-143. 

Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ 

academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 

353-387. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026838 

Ryan, R. M. (1995) Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of 

Personality, 63(3), 397-427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00501.x 

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. (2007). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: does psychology 

need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1557-1585. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x 

Severiens, S., Meeuwisse, M., & Born, M. (2015). Student experience and academic success: 

Comparing a student-centred and a lecture-based course programme. Higher Education, 70(1), 

1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9820-3 

Sikhwari, T. D. (2014). A study of the relationship between motivation, self-concept and academic 

achievement of students at a university in Limpopo Province, South Africa. International Journal 

of Educational Sciences, 6(1), 19-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2014.11890113 

Stoynoff, S. (1997). Factors associated with international students' academic achievement. Journal of 

Instructional Psychology, 24(1), 56-68. 

Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., & Briere, N. M. (1992). The academic motivation scale: a 

measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological 

Measurement, 52(4), 1003-1017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004025 

Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., & Briere, N. M. (1993). On the assessment of intrinsic, 

extrinsic, and amotivation in education: evidence on the concurrent and construct validity of the 

academic motivation scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(1), 159-172. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053001018 

Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in 

self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational 

Psychologist, 41(1), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4101_4 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/csm               Communication, Society and Media                Vol. 3, No. 3, 2020 

 

 
85 

Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., & Lens, W. (2009). Motivational profiles from 

a self-determination perspective: the quality of motivation matters. Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 101(3), 671-688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015083 

Wang, J. H. Y., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic 

motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension between US 

and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 162-186. 

https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.2 

Wong, J. K. K. (2004). Are the learning styles of Asian international students culturally or contextually 

based? International Education Journal, 4(4), 154-166. 

Zhang-Wu, Q. (2018). Chinese international students’ experiences in American higher education 

institutes: A critical review of the literature. Journal of International Students, 8(2), 1173-1197. 

https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v8i2.139 

Zhao, C. M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international student and American 

student engagement in effective educational practices. Journal of Higher Education, 76(2), 

209-231. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2005.0018 


