Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/Cultural differences in achievement motivation

Cultural differences in achievement motivation:
How do individualistic versus collectivistic values shape achievement goals and motivational strategies?

Overview

Consider this ...

You're offered a promotion at work. You think to yourself, what are my goals and aspirations? Do I want the promotion, or do I want it to bring pride to my family? If you come from an individualistic culture, you focus on what this means for you. This role gives you higher pay and a chance to build your career. If you come from a collectivist culture, you first think about your family. The higher status honours your parents. You imagine them proudly telling others about your success.

People are socialised to prioritise both their own welfare and that of others (Dekker et al., 2008; Fouad et al., 2016). Research on family influence and career decision-making shows that individuals often experience tension between personal aspirations and family expectations. In collectivist cultures, young adults frequently choose jobs that bring pride to their families or meet parental expectations, even when these choices do not fully align with their own goals (Fouad et al., 2016). In Individualistic cultures family influence exists but is less directive. Individuals are more likely to prioritise personal aspirations, supported by cultural values of equality and self determination (Fouad et al., 2016). The implications of both frameworks highlight how cultural orientation shapes motivation, goal-setting and social norms.

Focus questions

What is individualism and collectivism?
In what way do cultural norms influence goal setting?
How do cultural beliefs shape strategies people use to succeed?
How does culture shape the meaning and pursuit of success?
How do power structures within cultures affect achievement motivation?

Dimensions of individualistic and collectivist culture

Collectivism and individualism shape how people pursue goals and use motivational strategies. Hierarchal systems (collectivism) promote roles and duty, while egalitarian systems (individualism) promote cooperation and mastery goals (Bossert et al., 2025; Dekker et al., 2008). Individualists build independent self constructs, value autonomy and frame achievement goals around personal ambition and competition (Yan & Halpenny, 2019). This is seen in Anglo-Saxon societies (Yan & Halpenny, 2019). Whereas, collectivists build interdependent self constructs and align goals with family and community expectations (Yan & Halpenny, 2019). This is seen in Asian societies (Yan & Halpenny, 2019). Self determination theory as discussed by Hagger et al. (2014), explores elements of choice to boost intrinsic motivation. Individualists respond to personal choice, while collectivists respond when choice affirms group affiliation (Hagger et al., 2014).

Psychological theories

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions describe individualists as independent and person achievement orientated. Collectivist cultures prioritise shared responsibility and harmony (Hofstede, 2011). Markus and Kitayama’s self-construals show independent selves seek choice, uniqueness and competence expression, so mastery and performance-approach goals feel identity-congruent (individualism) (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Interdependent selves seek fitting in and role fulfilment, so socially anchored mastery goals and obligation-consistent performance are normative (collectivism) (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Triandis’ cultural syndromes showcase that cultures differ by individualism versus collectivism and by horizontal equality versus vertical hierarchy (Triandis, 1996). Horizontal individualism aligns with self-chosen mastery goals among equals, vertical individualism with competitive performance display, horizontal collectivism with group-centred mastery goals and vertical collectivism with duty-bound performance for the in-group (Triandis, 1996).

Schwartz’s basic values as show in Figure 2, emphasis that individualist contexts prioritise autonomy and interest-driven goals (Schwartz, 2012). Collectivist contexts prioritise conservation and conformity.

Individualistic cultures

Individualistic cultures are grounded in autonomy and egalitarianism (Dekker et al., 2008). People are encouraged to find meaning in personal uniqueness and to express their own attitudes and feelings. Autonomy promotes experiential pursuits and egalitarianism promotes equality (Dekker et al., 2008). Together these values create conditions where achievement is viewed as personal to reflect self-expression.

Dekker et al. (2008) draw on Elliot's (1999) hierarchal model of Approach and Avoidance Motivation to explain the underlying dimensions of motivation goals. Within this framework, cultural dimensions align strongly with mastery and performance approach goals (Dekker et al., 2008). Mastery goals promote learning, challenge and development as self-directed processes where achievement reflects one’s own ability and effort (Dekker et al., 2008). Performance-approach goals support the desire to demonstrate competence and outperform others, framing competition as a positive motivator. Egalitarianism further shapes achievement motivation by linking success to voluntary prosocial action rather than prescribed obligation (Dekker et al., 2008).

Collectivist cultures

Dekker et al. (2008) described the collectivism culture as hierarchal. This context provides individuals with a clear sense of belonging and purpose in a group (Dekker et al., 2008). It emphasises achievement is tied to the welfare and prestige of a group (Dekker et al., 2008). This can generate strong motivation to work hard and maintain the status quo, however this can limit innovation and discourage risk-taking (Dekker et al., 2008). Hierarchy reinforces order by refining roles and obligations that guide behaviour (Dekker et al., 2008). Motivation may be extrinsically driven by obligations and social pressures rather than by intrinsic curiosity or mastery pursuits (Dekker et al., 2008). This reliance on external structures raises concerns about the sustainability of motivation when hierarchical enforcements weakens, such as cross culture contexts (Dekker et al., 2008).

Li et al. (2021) examined how cultural values shape the relationship between motivation and academic achievement across 59 societies. They found that in individualistic cultures, passion strongly predicted achievement. In collectivist cultures, family expectations and social obligations were stronger influences, reducing the impact of passion on achievement (Li et al., 2021). Parental support played a significant motivational role in collectivist contexts, showing that external relationships influence achievement more than internal interest (Li et al., 2021). This suggests that students in individualistic cultures pursue goals based on personal interest and confidence, whereas students in collectivist cultures frame achievement around family and community expectations.

Test yourself!

Table 1. Psychological theories explaining the distinction between individualistic and collectivist cultures.


Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory	Individualism values independence. Collectivism values group harmony and shared responsibility.
Markus and Kitayama’s Self-Construal Theory	Individualistic cultures value independent self-focused personal choice. Collectivist cultures promote an interdependent self-focus on relationships.
Triandis Theory of Cultural Syndromes	Individualistic cultures emphasise competition and self-expression. Collectivist cultures emphasise cooperation. Cultures can also differ by hierarchy or equality.
Schwartz’s Theory of Basic Human Values	Individualistic cultures value of thought. Collectivist cultures value tradition.

Goal and motivation strategies across cultures

Korpershoek et al. (2021) study used a four-factor motivation model on intrinsic motivation aimed to report cross-cultural patterns. Different cultural values shape performance and approaches to goals, consistent with the dimensions in Figure 5. Korpershoek et al. (2021) distinguished goal type from goal meaning. Cultures often share end goals, such as doing well in school, but differ in their reasons for pursuing them. Personal investment theory indicates that goals are pursued for social solidarity, external rewards, or to outperform others through competition.

Leontev (2019) explores multicultural teams and how cultural factors such as individualism, collectivism and power shape collaboration and conflict in a variety of settings. Collectivist members tend to value harmony and group norms (Leontev, 2019). Cooperation motivates conflict management, this can reduce cooperation when group norms demand conformity but support direct communication, even if it risks disagreement (Leantev, 2019). Power limits open communication as lower status members hesitate to contribute, while egalitarian orientations encourage more inclusive exchanges (Leantev, 2019). This highlights that collaboration and conflict are managed in culturally distant ways and team satisfaction depends on whether communication and conflict handling align with members expectations. Similarly, Hagger et al. (2014) research on choice and intrinsic motivation shows that organisations can adopt systems that align with both individualistic and collectivist motivational drivers. Self-determination theory shows that choice enhances intrinsic motivation by supporting personal agency, indicating that cultural orientation changes how choice works (Hagger et al., 2014).

A three-decade multilevel meta-analysis conducted by Steel and Colleagues (2010) found that individualism predicts self-initiated outcomes, while collectivism predicts coordinated outcomes. Cross-national synthesis shows reliable differences in international individualism (American) and collectivism (Japan) that map onto goal framing and regulation. Non-student adults (Japan) d = 0.44, CI 0.20. College students (American) d = 0.23, CI 0.17 (Oyserman et al., 2002). Culture priming shows that making independence shifts people toward self-expressive goal pursuit, whereas interdependence shifts them toward obligation-consistent goals, with effects that are moderate for relationally, cognition and smaller for self-concept and values (Oyserman., 2008). Across 60 studies utilising a five factor model of of personality traits being openness to experience a = .76, autonomy and self-direction values align with interest-driven persistence. Whereas tradition, conformity and kindness align with communal dispositions and norm-guided effort (Parks-Leduc., 2015). Similarly a synthesis of 9,935 participants from 14 countries showed that value-behaviour links to clarifying why individualistic settings favour mastery and performance-approach goals based on personal choice and collectivistic settings. Using the OCEAN model, socially anchored mastery and reputation-relevant performance supported coordination and role clarity with a 95% confidence interval (Fischer and Boer, 2015). Together, these reviews explain why autonomy and self-direction values, independent selves and egalitarian structures favour self-chosen mastery and performance approach goals. Whereas, interdependent selves and hierarchical structures favour socially anchored mastery and duty-consistent performance supported by coordination and role clarity (Oyserman et al., 2002; Steel et al., 2010).

Individualism: Person achievement

In individualistic cultures, personal achievement is the focus of motivation (King et al., 2012). Success is defined through self-referenced standards and individual accomplishments, where competitiveness often drives the pursuit of performance goals (King et al., 2012). Within this cultural framework, competitiveness is typically seen as a negative trait, associated with anxiety and maladaptive strategies as mastery goals are predicted by personal interest and persistence rather than social comparison (King et al., 2012). Western contexts has shown trait competitiveness aligns with performance goals but does not contribute to mastery goals. Goal orientation demonstrates competence which can foster surface level learning rather than deep engagement (King et al., 2012). This approach highlights the separation between intrinsic mastery goals and extrinsic performance goals suggesting that individualistic contexts treat competitiveness as distinct from self-improvement (King et al., 2012).

Collectivism: Group achievement

In collectivist cultures, motivation strategies reflect a stronger emphasise on goal achievement and the fulfilment of social obligations (King et al., 2012). Achievement goals are tied not only to personal development but also demonstrating competence in ways that align with family and community expectations. Competitiveness carries a different meaning in this context, often being framed as positive and necessary for group improvement. King et al's (2012) research in Chinese culture, showed competitiveness is associated with both mastery and performance goals, creating mutually reinforcing relationship between learning new skills and publicly demonstrating them. This allows performance goals to support deep learning strategies rather than hindering them. Collectivist students are able to integrate competition with cooperation, using mastery and performance goals together to meet both personal and social standards of success (King et al., 2012). Therefore, suggests that collectivist educational systems may use positive competitiveness to promote adaptive learning strategies and social cohesion.

Case study

Lucy, who comes from a collectivist family, works hard in science to make her family proud. She likes following group rules. John comes from an individualist family, and he prefers choosing his own projects. During a group assignment, Lucy listens to others and follows directions, while John contributes his own ideas. The teacher assigned these group roles to maintain harmony between different cultural contexts. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory on collectivist cultures emphasise group goals, social harmony, and interdependence, whereas individualist cultures prioritise personal achievement, autonomy, and self-expression. These differences show how cultural values shape motivation and collaboration within educational settings.

Social influence and conformity

The cultural value dimension shown in Figure 6, reflects hierarchy and egalitarianism. Social norms shape what students believe is expected of them (descriptive norms) and what they see peers doing (injunctive norms) (Bossert et al., 2025). In hierarchical systems, norms often promote competition and status over cooperation, which tends to elevate performance approach goals or performance avoidance goals (Bossert et al., 2025).

Socialisation

For Asian Indians, achievement is not only a personal milestone but a reflection of family often steering children towards high status fields such as science and maths (Fouad et al., 2016). The family influence scale assesses financial, emotional support and family expectations on careers, showing that collectivist norms emphasise family obligation, where children are expected to support and respect their family by balancing academic demands with responsibilities such as caregiving (Fouad et al., 2016). Therefore, career decisions are also shaped by extrinsic work ethics, due to these outcomes directly benefiting the family/community (Fouad et al., 2016).

Nonconformity

Boyle et al. (2020) showed that when students deviate from culturally shaped expectations they face social sanctions and rejection. In collectivist cultures, where conformity to group norms is highly valued, failing to align with expected behaviours can lead to exclusion from groups (Boyle et al., 2020). In individualistic cultures, nonconformity may be tolerated to a greater degree, but it can still be viewed negatively if it undermines performance (Boyle et al., 2020).

Using structural equation modelling, Boyle et al. (2020) found that academic performance, measured by GPA, is influenced not only by goal orientation and study strategies but also by broader cultural context. Country and region affected how culture shaped achievement. Psychological wellbeing mediated these effects, with students who maintained positive affect and effective coping achieved higher results regardless of cultural background (Boyle et al., 2020). This suggests that different academic strategies or motivational orientations can produce similar performance outcomes when wellbeing is supported (Boyle et al., 2020).

The assumptions that Asian students rely mainly on rote learning while Western students adopt deep learning was challenged by Boyle et al. (2020). Thai students scored higher on deep study approaches (Boyle et al., 2020). It suggests that cultural differences remain but they are not fixed. Nonconformity in cultural stereotypes may reflecting a gradual shift towards more flexible and diverse academic practices across cultural contexts (Boyle et al., 2020).

Test your knowledge!

Application of achievement goals and motivational strategies

Drawing on a PISA analysis of 595,444 adolescents from 77 countries, Guo et al. (2023) discussed that mastery-approach goals robustly predict achievement and wellbeing, yet their antecedents differ by culture. I ² = 99.6% and Q = 18189.66, df = 76, p < .001.(Guo et al., 2023). In individualistic settings, mastery thrives when tasks highlight personal choice and opportunities to display competence (Guo et al., 2023). Performance-approach goals can be adaptive when framed as personal excellence rather than social comparison, paired with formative feedback that preserves autonomy (Guo et al., 2023).

Individualistic

Strategies that enhance personal agency and autonomy are most effective. Allowing individuals to choose tasks, set personal goals and pursue interests enhance performance (Hagger et al., 2014). Feedback is motivating when it recognises personal achievement (Hagger et al., 2014). Goal setting strategies for individualistic cultures could emphasise self improvement, competition and independence strategies (Dekker et al., 2008). In individualistic classrooms, using choice-rich tasks, individual benchmarking and metacognitive self-monitoring to cultivate mastery while tempering zero-sum competition (Guo et al., 2023; Korpershoek et al., 2021). In collectivist classrooms, integrating cooperative structures, public recognition tied to collective outcomes and relational feedback that links effort to group obligations, allowing performance-approach goals to support deep learning rather than mastery goals (Guo et al., 2023; Korpershoek et al., 2021).

Collectivist

Strategies that reinforce social connection and obligation are most effective. Motivation strengthens when goals are framed around family pride, group success and community benefit (Hagger et al., 2014). Decision making led by group members such as leaders can enhance commitment (Hagger et al., 2014). When feedback is delivered in ways that acknowledges collective achievement and harmony, goal setting strategies enhance group responsibilities and maintain relationships (Dekker et al., 2008). In collectivist settings mastery focus is most effective when framed as contribution to family, class, or school reputation, supported by coordinated group work, explicit role clarity and authority-consistent guidance (Guo et al., 2023). Complementing this, Korpershoek et al. (2021), used the inventory of school motivation across more than 10,000 students from eight cultural groups, found systematic differences in endorsement of mastery, performance, social and extrinsic goals (Korpershoek et al., 2021). Together, these findings indicate that culturally congruent framing and regulation strategies determine whether achievement goals translate into sustained, adaptive motivation (Guo et al., 2023; Korpershoek et al., 2021).

Strengths and limitations

In summary strengths and limitations highlight how Individualism offers autonomy, personal responsibility and room for innovation. It supports self-set goals, merit recognition and rapid adaptation. It can also foster diversity of ideas and entrepreneurial risk taking. Its limitations include weaker social support. It can widen inequality and discourage help-seeking. Collectivism offers strong social ties, shared purpose and reliable support. It enables coordination, role clarity and norm-based persistence. Its limitations include expectation to conform and slower change and deference to status. In individualistic cultures people build on independent self construals, they see themselves as unique and separate, value intellectual autonomy and expect achievement goals to reflect personal ambition, self expression and competition (Yan and Halpenny, 2019). In collectivist cultures people develop an interdependent self-construal. They see themselves as connected to others, value hierarchy, and expect achievement goals to serve group harmony (Yan and Halpenny, 2019). For future analysis, the task is to identify which theories best integrate cultural constructs that support social harmony across contexts. Self-determination theory emphasises choice as a pathway to intrinsic motivation (Hagger et al., 2014), a factor that tends to work well in individualist settings where personal choice is valued. Personal investment theory views goals as pursuits shaped by anticipated rewards and social meanings (Korpershoek et al., 2021). This can align with both cultural contexts, depending on the goal’s underlying meaning and purpose. Future work should use multi-level, longitudinal designs, test measurement equivalence and model within-person change across settings (Oyserman et al., 2002; Steel, 2010). Field trials should compare culturally tuned interventions, for example choice-rich versus contribution-framed goal setting, and report outcomes for achievement and wellbeing (Guo et al., 2023; Korpershoek et al., 2021). Studies of mixed methods accounts of what success means and tests of moderators such as power distance, class and gender will clarify when individualistic or collectivistic framings help or harm (Fischer & Boer, 2015; Triandis, 1996).

Conclusion

Individualism prioritises autonomy and personal achievement, so people set self-referenced goals and use choice, challenge and self-monitoring. Collectivism prioritises harmony and shared responsibility, so people set contribution-focused goals and use coordination, role clarity and authority-consistent guidance. Power structures matter, with vertical systems amplifying duty and status concerns and horizontal systems supporting mastery and cooperation. Norms signal what counts as success, beliefs steer the strategies people use, culture gives success its meaning and hierarchy or equality shapes whether performance or mastery rises. In individualist settings, build choice into tasks, use self-referenced feedback and frame performance as personal excellence. In collectivist settings, mastery goals are framed as service to family, class, team, or community, use cooperative structures and public recognition tied to collective outcomes and keep wellbeing in view so different strategies can yield similar performance. Overall alluding to Triandis' theory of cultural syndromes.

Nuvola apps kuser

Take home message: Individualism and collectivism cultures match goals and feedback to culture. In individualist settings people use choice and challenge. In collectivist settings people frame mastery goals as contribution and use clear roles.

References

Bossert, S., Daumiller, M., Janke, S., Dresel, M., & Dickhäuser, O. (2025). On the influence of social norms on individual achievement goals.

Boyle, G. J., Wongsri, N., Bahr, M., Macayan, J. V., & Bentler, P. M. (2020). Cross-cultural differences in personality, motivation and cognition in Asian vs. Western societies. Personality and Individual Differences, 159, Article 109834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109834

Dekker, S., & Fischer, R. (2008). Cultural Differences in Academic Motivation Goals: A Meta-Analysis Across 13 Societies. The Journal of Educational Research (Washington, D.C.), 102(2), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.102.2.99-110

Fischer, R., & Boer, D. (2015). Motivational Basis of Personality Traits: A Meta-Analysis of Value-Personality Correlations. Journal of Personality, 83(5), 491–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12125

Fouad, N. A., Kim, S., Ghosh, A., Chang, W., & Figueiredo, C. (2016). Family Influence on Career Decision Making: Validation in India and the United States. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(1), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714565782

Guo, J., Hu, X., Elliot, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Murayama, K., Basarkod, G., Parker, P. D., & Dicke, T. (2023). Mastery-Approach Goals: A Large-Scale Cross-Cultural Analysis of Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(2), 397–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000436

Hagger, M. S., Rentzelas, P., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2014). Effects of individualist and collectivist group norms and choice on intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 38(2), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9373-2

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

King, R. B., McInerney, D. M., & Watkins, D. A. (2012). Competitiveness is not that bad…at least in the East: Testing the hierarchical model of achievement motivation in the Asian setting. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(3), 446–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.10.003

Korpershoek, H., King, R. B., McInerney, D. M., Nasser, R. N., Ganotice, F. A., & Watkins, D. A. (2021). Gender and cultural differences in school motivation. Research Papers in Education, 36(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1633557

Leontev, M. (2019). The manifestation of cultural factors and group processes in the work of a multicultural team. E3S Web of Conferences, 138, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/201913802016

Li, X., Han, M., Cohen, G. L., & Markus, H. R. (2021). Passion matters but not equally everywhere: Predicting achievement from interest, enjoyment, and efficacy in 59 societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 118(11), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2016964118

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3

Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does Culture Influence What and How We Think? Effects of Priming Individualism and Collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 311–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.311

Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2015). Personality Traits and Personal Values: A Meta-Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314538548

Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116

Steel, P., & Taras, V. (2010). Culture as a consequence: A multi-level multivariate meta-analysis of the effects of individual and country characteristics on work-related cultural values. Journal of International Management, 16(3), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2010.06.002

Triandis, H. C. (1996). The Psychological Measurement of Cultural Syndromes. The American Psychologist, 51(4), 407–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.4.407

Yan, N., & Halpenny, E. (2019). The role of cultural difference and travel motivation in event participation: A cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 10(2), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEFM-05-2018-0033

External links

Cultural diversity of Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics Census Dashboard)
“How does culture shape motivation?” Nathan Rippin TEDxYouth@BHS (YouTube)
Understanding different cultures (ReachOut content team)
Hofstede culture comparison tool (Geert Hofstede)
Happiness and life satisfaction (Our World in Data)