Self- and Group-Orientations and Adjustment in Chinese Adolescents: The Role of Classroom Sociable Norm

Abstract

This 1-year longitudinal study investigated the moderating role of classroom sociable norm on the relations between self- and group-oriented cultural values and adjustment among Chinese adolescents. Participants included 2,671 students (47.8% boys, M age = 12.90 years old) in seventh grade from 58 classrooms in China. Data on self- and group-orientations, sociability, and school and psychosocial adjustment were collected from multiple sources including self-reports, peer nominations, teacher ratings, and school records. Self-orientation was found to negatively predict later prosociality and positively predict later behavioral problems in classrooms with a low classroom sociable norm. In classrooms with a high sociable norm, self-orientation positively predicted later academic performance and social status. The results highlighted the importance of classroom context in shaping adjustment outcomes of adolescents with different cultural orientations.

Keywords

cultural orientations sociability classroom norm adolescents’ adjustment

Introduction

One of the most prominent ways of describing how individuals view and interact with the world is through self- and group-orientations (X. Liu et al., 2018). Whereas self-orientation emphasizes personal goals and self-initiative, group-orientation prioritizes group goals and group cohesiveness and solidarity (Kitayama et al., 2010; Miyamoto et al., 2018). Grounded in cultural models of individualism and collectivism (Hofstede, 2011), self- and group-orientations are conceptualized as individual characteristics that are developed mainly from socialization experiences shaped by the influence of external cultural factors (Chen & French, 2008; Kitayama et al., 2010; Oyserman, 2017; Triandis, 1995). As a result of their culturally related socialization experiences, individuals in a society vary on the extent to which they endorse self- or group-oriented values and display attitudinal and behavioral tendencies accordingly. Self-oriented individuals tend to be autonomous and independent, making decisions based on their own choices (Oyserman, 2017). In contrast, group-oriented individuals tend to consider their roles in the group as well as others’ views and interests in social interactions and display behaviors that are conducive to group harmony and interpersonal relationships (Chen, 2023). According to the pluralist-constructivist perspective (Chen, 2015; Kagitcibasi, 2012; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2008), self- and group-oriented cultural orientations may co-exist, especially in contemporary societies with increased communication and integration of diverse social and cultural systems, to serve different functions in human development. Whereas self-orientation may contribute to the acquisition of personal goals such as individual achievement and social status, group-orientation may play a more crucial role in helping individuals to establish social connections, fit with the social environment, and attain group achievement. Research has shown that self- and group-orientations are positively correlated among adolescents and jointly shape individual adjustment (X. Liu et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2024).

Zhao et al. (2024) investigated how adolescents’ endorsement of cultural values changed over time and how they were associated with different outcomes. The results showed that an increase in self-orientation was associated with subsequent assertiveness, and a slower decrease in group orientation was associated with prosociality and peer preference, supporting the pluralist-constructivist perspective and suggesting that both self- and group-orientation plays an important role in adolescents’ development. X. Liu et al. (2018) found in China that whereas group-orientation was positively associated with social competence and academic achievement in rural children, self-orientation was negatively associated with loneliness and depression in urban children. The results indicated that the functional meanings of self- and group-orientations are likely to be shaped by contexts.

In the present study, we attempted to explore how classroom-level contexts might play a role in shaping the associations between self- and group-orientations and later adjustments in Chinese adolescents. From a “goodness of fit” perspective, Hu et al. (2023) investigated the norm salience of sociability in the classroom or classroom sociable norm in a sample of elementary and middle school students in China. In the study, the classroom sociable norm was formed based on correlations between the scores of sociability and social preference within the classroom, with higher scores indicating that sociability was more preferred in the classroom. The study showed that classrooms varied substantially on sociable norm. Moreover, classroom sociable norm moderated the relations between the individual characteristic of unsociability and adjustment outcomes. Consistent with the approach in Hu et al.’s study (2023), we focused on classroom sociability norm and examined its moderating effects on the relations between self- and group-orientations and later adjustment in the present study.

Classroom Sociable Norm

Sociability describes adolescents’ ability and motivation to actively initiate and maintain interactions with others in social settings (Asendorpf, 1990). Although sociability may be partly determined by dispositional factors, it is perceived and responded to differently across contexts. In Western societies, sociability is viewed as a desirable quality, indicating autonomy and social competence (Rubin & Asendorpf, 2014; Rubin et al., 2010). In Chinese society, sociability is not highly appreciated or valued because it may not bear much relevance to group functioning. Research has shown in Chinese youth that sociability may be expressed in forms of behavioral and antisocial behaviors (Chen, 2018; Chen et al., 2000). Thus, although children and adolescents are encouraged to interact with others, it is believed that social interactions need to occur in the “right” direction with adequate self-regulation (Chen, 2023). Indeed, Li et al. (2016) found that Chinese teachers perceived sociability unfavorably because it might be disruptive to the classroom environment.

Over the past several decades, China has changed toward a competitive-market oriented economy in which exploration, independence, and self-expression are required to achieve success in the society (Cai et al., 2020). Schools have started to revise the educational goals to promote qualities such as initiative-taking and personal autonomy (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2022). Accordingly, the traditional knowledge-acquisition-based curriculum has been expanded into a more comprehensive one including helping children develop social skills that are conducive to adaptation in the competitive environment (Chen, 2018; G. X. Y. Liu & Helwig, 2022). Students are encouraged to engage in various self-directed extracurricular activities and enroll in student-led clubs and organizations. As a result, teachers and adolescents may gradually change their attitudes toward social initiation and assertiveness, and sociability may become a salient characteristic in peer interactions. The social expectations and attitudes regarding sociability are likely to be reflected in the classroom context, including classroom sociable norm.

The norm salience of sociability in the classroom is concerned with the extent to which sociability is preferred in the classroom (Garandeau et al., 2022; Hu et al., 2023). In Hu et al.’s study (2023), in classrooms where sociability was more preferred (high sociable norm), individual unsociability was positively associated with loneliness and negatively associated with self-esteem more strongly. In the present study, we were interested in how classroom sociable norm would play a role in shaping the adjustment of adolescents with self- and group-orientations.

Moderating Effects of Classroom Sociable Norm on the Relations Between Cultural Orientations and Adjustment

From the goodness-of-fit perspective (Lerner & Lerner, 2017; Thomas & Chess, 1977), the adjustment of individuals depends on how their specific traits fit the environment. For example, the individual tendency of self-orientation and the classroom context with a high sociable norm may be a good fit as both indicate preference for initiative-taking, self-direction, and assertiveness in social settings. As such, highly self-oriented adolescents are likely to fit better with the environment in classrooms with a low sociable norm than in classrooms with a high sociable norm. On the contrary, adolescents with a low self-orientation or a high group-orientation may fit better in classrooms with a low sociable norm than in classrooms with a high sociable norm.

The processes in which classroom sociable norm affects adolescents’ adjustment may be indicated in the stress-buffering and resource-potentiating models. The stress-buffering model focuses on factors that exacerbate or buffer against certain risk and adversity during individual development (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Rutter, 2013). A high level of self-orientation may be a risk factor for adolescents in classrooms with a low sociable norm where sociability is not preferred. In classrooms where sociability is preferred, however, self-oriented adolescents who tend to display assertive and autonomous behaviors may be regarded as socially competent and receive support from others. In this case, a high classroom sociable norm serves as a protective factor that buffers against the maladaptive development of self-oriented adolescents. On the other hand, adolescents with a high group-orientation may be at risk in classrooms with a high sociable norm whereas classroom context with a low sociable norm may serve as protective factor for these adolescents, reducing the risk for developing adjustment problems. Statistically, the stress-buffering model would be indicated by significant negative individual-level relations between self-orientation and positive adjustment in classrooms with a low sociable norm and weaker or nonsignificant relations in classrooms with a high sociable norm. The model would also be indicated by significant negative individual-level relations between group-orientation and positive adjustment in classroom with a high sociable norm and weaker or nonsignificant relations in classrooms with a low sociable norm.

The resource-potentiating model (Kupersmidt et al., 1995) focuses on factors that facilitate the development of adolescents who have the potential to achieve positive outcomes. For example, the high preference of sociability in the classroom would promote the adaptive development of adolescents with a higher self-orientation in exhibiting their autonomous and self-directed desires and behaviors. However, adolescents with a low self-orientation or a high group-orientation may not benefit from the context with a high classroom sociable norm. On the other hand, a classroom context with a low classroom sociable norm may promote adaptive development of adolescents with a low self-orientation or a high group-orientation but not for those with a high self-orientation or a low group-orientation. Statistically, this model would be reflected by significant positive individual-level relations between self-orientation and positive adjustment in classrooms with a high sociable norm but weaker or non-significant relations in classrooms with a low sociable norm. The model would also be indicated by significant positive individual-level relations between group-orientation and positive adjustment in classroom with a low sociable norm and weaker or nonsignificant relations in classrooms with a high sociable norm.

The Present Study: An Overview

The main purpose of the current 1-year longitudinal study was to examine the moderating role of classroom sociable norm on the associations between cultural orientations and later social, school, and psychological adjustment among Chinese adolescents. The participants were from an area with rapidly developing towns and small cities, representing a context with a mixture of different values. The variation of self- and group-orientated values and different attitudes toward sociability across classrooms provided an excellent opportunity to examine the role of classroom sociable norm on the relations between individual cultural orientations and adjustments. Participants included students initially at Grade 7, which is the first year in middle school in China. The years during middle school are a crucial period of development for adolescents as they engage in extensive peer interactions and experience elevated pressure for social and academic performance in school (e.g., Chen et al., 2023). Furthermore, adolescents are highly sensitive to societal norms and peer evaluations in school (Laursen, 2018; Rudolph, 2021; Somerville, 2013). Thus, it would be interesting to investigate how cultural orientations were associated with later adjustment outcomes in classrooms with different sociable norm.

As suggested by other researchers (e.g., Garandeau et al., 2022; Hu et al., 2023), the classroom sociable norm was measured using the within classroom correlation between peer preference and individual sociability. Previous studies have shown the validity of this approach to assessing the norm salience of sociability in the classroom context. For adjustment variables, we collected data on prosociality, teacher-rated social competence, teacher-rated behavioral and learning problems, academic grade, social status, depression, and loneliness. According to Alexander and Entwisle (1988) as well as Ladd et al. (2006), adolescents’ adjustments in school mainly included fulfilling social expectations, meeting academic demands, and affect toward school. The measures in this study would represent the main aspects of adolescents’ adjustment. For our main hypotheses, based on the previous discussions, we hypothesized that classroom sociable norm would have significant moderating effects on the relations between cultural orientations and adjustments. Consistent with the theoretical models (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Kupersmidt et al., 1995; Lerner & Lerner, 2017), in general, we expected that self-orientation would positively predict social and school competence more evidently in classrooms with a high sociable norm than in classrooms with a low sociable norm and that group-orientation would positively predict social and school competence more evidently in classrooms with a low sociable norm than in classrooms with a high sociable norm. We also expected that self-orientation would positively predict adjustment problems more evidently in classrooms with a low sociable norm than in classrooms with a high sociable norm and that group-orientation would positively predict adjustment problems more evidently in classrooms with a high sociable norm than in classrooms with a low sociable norm.

Method

Participants

The sample in the study included 2,671 students (47.8% boys) initially in seventh grade in middle schools from a region consisting of developing towns and small cities in south China. The mean age was 12.90 years (SD = 6.69 months). The students were from 58 classes in 8 different public schools, with an average class size of 46 students. The structure and organization of the public schools are similar. During the 3 years of middle school, students typically stay in the same class with the same classmates and are not allowed to switch classes. A head teacher is mainly responsible for the social and daily activities for the class and usually teaches one of the major subjects (Chinese, math, or English).

Of all the participants, 52.9% of them were the only child of the family. Of the mothers, 93.7% received an education of middle school or below, 5.5% received an education of high school, 0.7% received an education above high school. Of the fathers, 87.2% received an education of middle school or below, 10.5% received an education of high school, 2.3% received an education above high school.

From the original sample, 2,465 students participated in the follow-up study 1 year later. There were no significant differences between the students who participated in the follow up study and those who did not.

Measures

Self- and Group-Orientations

Participants’ self- and group-orientations were assessed using the Children’s Cultural Values Scale (Chen et al., 2012; X. Liu et al., 2018; Singelis, 1994). The measure included 10 items concerning self-orientations (e.g., “I always make my own decisions,” “It’s important to be unique and different,” “I always express my own opinions in group discussions”) and 10 items concerning group-orientations (e.g., “The groups’ decisions should be respected by every group member,” “It’s important to maintain harmony within the group,” “My relationship with others are more important than my own accomplishments”). The students were asked to respond to the items on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all true; 5 = always true). The average score of the responses was calculated, with higher scores of the subscale indicating greater self- or group-orientations. The measure has been used and shown to be reliable and valid in previous studies with Chinese adolescents (Chen et al., 2012; X. Liu et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2024). In the current study, the internal reliabilities for self- and group-orientations were 0.73 and 0.77 at Time 1 and 0.77 and 0.80 at Time 2, respectively.

Peer Preference

Students were asked to nominate up to three classmates with whom they most liked to be and three classmates with whom they least liked to be with (positive and negative nomination). Then, we calculated the total number of positive or negative nominations each student received from all classmates. The total number of positive or negative nominations received from peers indicated how a student was liked or disliked by peers in the class. Both same-sex and opposite-sex nominations were allowed. The nomination scores were standardized within the classroom to control for the differences in the number of nominators across classes. Following previous researchers’ suggestions (Coie et al., 1982), peer preference was calculated from subtracting negative nomination scores from positive nomination scores. This procedure was used and shown to be reliable and valid in Chinese samples (e.g., J. Liu et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2022).

Sociability

Sociability was measured through a peer nomination measure adapted from the Revised Class Play (Chen et al., 2005; Masten et al., 1985). The measure consisted of four items (e.g., “Makes new friends easily,” “Likes to play with others rather than alone”). Students were asked to nominate up to three classmates who could best fit the role if they were to direct a class play. As suggested by previous researchers (Terry & Coie, 1991), both same-sex and opposite-sex nomination were allowed. Then, we calculated the total number of nominations each student received from all classmates for each item. The nomination scores were standardized within the classroom to control for differences in the number of nominators. The measure was used and shown to be reliable and valid in previous studies with Chinese students (Gao et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2023). In the current study, the internal reliabilities were 0.84 and 0.86 at Times 1 and 2, respectively.

Classroom Sociable Norm

As suggested by other researchers (e.g., Garandeau et al., 2022; Hu et al., 2023), the classroom sociable norm was measured using the within classroom correlation between peer preference and individual sociability. In the current study, the classroom sociable norm scores ranged from 0.092 to 0.777 with a mean of 0.364 and a standard deviation of 0.135. The results showed that there were considerable variations on classroom sociable norm.

Prosociality

Prosociality was measured through a peer nomination measure adapted from the Revised Class Play (Masten et al., 1985). Students were asked to nominate up to three classmates who could best fit each of the four items (e.g., “Polite,” “Helps other people when they need it”). Both same-sex and opposite-sex nominations were allowed. Nominations each student received from all classmates for each item were computed and standardized in the class. The measure was used and shown to be reliable and valid in previous studies with Chinese adolescents (e.g., Chen et al., 2000; Jin et al., 2022). In the current study, the internal reliabilities were 0.75 and 0.79 at Times 1 and 2, respectively.

Teacher-Rated Social Competence, Behavioral Problems, and Learning Problems

The head teacher in each class was asked to rate each student in the class, using measure adapted from Hightower et al. (1986). The teachers rated the items on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very well), in terms of how well each item described the child. The social competence scale included 20 items assessing multiple aspects of school-related social competence, including peer social skills, frustration tolerance, and task orientation (e.g., “Participates in class discussion,” “Comfortable as a leader”). The behavioral problems scale included seven items (e.g., “Overly aggressive to peers (fights),” “Disruptive in class”), and the learning problems scale included six items (e.g., “Poorly motivated to achieve,” “Having difficulties in learning academic subjects”). The teacher-rating scores were averaged and standardized within the class to control for teacher’s response style. This measure was used and shown to be reliable and valid in previous studies with Chinese students (e.g., Chen et al., 2023; X. Liu et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2024). In the current study, the internal reliabilities of the measure were 0.91 and 0.90 for social competence, 0.79 and 0.80 for behavioral problems, and 0.79 and 0.80 for learning problems at Times 1 and 2, respectively.

Academic Performance

Information regarding to adolescents’ academic grade in Chinese, mathematics, and English were obtained from school records. The grades on these three subjects were based on examinations conducted by the school. Following procedures in previous studies (e.g., Zhao et al., 2022), the grades of Chinese, mathematics, and English were summed and standardized within the class. Furthermore, as described above, the head teacher in the class was asked to rate each of the student in his/her class on learning problems. Consistent with the approach used in previous studies (e.g., Chen et al., 2005, 2019; Xu et al., 2020), academic grades and the reverse-coded teacher-rated learning problems were aggregated to form the variable of academic performance.

Social Status

In Chinese schools, there is usually a formal evaluation of each student in each academic year. Students who are considered to be socially/morally and intellectually competent may be nominated by classmates and teachers for the award of “distinguished students.” There are various levels of “distinguished student” awards, from the class level to the school, the district, and the municipal levels. Students who did not receive any nominations received a score of 0; students who received awards at the class level received a score of 1; students who received an award at the school level received a score of 2; students who received an award at the district level received a score of 3; and students who received an award at the municipal level received a score of 4. The scores of distinguished studentships were standardized within the class.

There are various formal student organizations, which are often hierarchical in nature, in Chinese schools. The leaders of these organizations, elected by peers and teachers, are usually believed to be good students in social and school performance. Leadership at a higher level such as school level is considered indicating greater competence than that at a lower level such as the class or within-class group level. Students who were small group leaders within the class received a score of 1; students who held leadership positions at the class level and the school level received a score of 2 and 3, respectively. Students who did not hold leadership positions were given a score of 0. Leadership scores were standardized within the class. Data on the award and leadership were collected from the school records. Consistent with previous research, the scores of leadership and distinguished studentship were aggregated to indicate social status (Chen et al., 2019). The information has used and shown to be a reliable indicator of social competence in Chinese students (e.g., Chen et al., 2019; X. Liu et al., 2018).

Depression

Students’ depression was assessed by a 14-item self-report measure of the Children’s Depression Inventory (Chen et al., 2005; Kovacs, 1992). Each item in the measure provided three alternate responses from which the participants chose one that best described them in the past 2 weeks (e.g., “I feel like crying every day,” “I feel like crying most days,” “I feel like crying once in a while”). The items assessed a given thought, feeling, or behavior associated with depression (e.g., self-hate, sadness, self-blame, fatigue, anhedonia, and reduced appetite). The average score of depression was computed and used in the current analysis, with higher scores indicating greater depression. The measure has been used and shown to be reliable and valid in previous studies with Chinese adolescents (Chen et al., 2019; X. Liu et al., 2018). The internal reliabilities of depression in the current study were 0.82 and 0.81 at Times 1 and 2, respectively.

Loneliness

Adolescents’ loneliness was assessed by a self-report measure (Asher et al., 1984). Participants were asked to respond to 16 self-statements (e.g., “I have nobody to talk to,” “I feel lonely”) using a 5-point scale (1 = not at all; 5 = always true). The average score of loneliness was computed, with higher scores indicating greater loneliness. This measure was used and shown to be reliable and valid in other studies with Chinese students (e.g., Chen et al., 2014). The internal reliabilities were 0.90 and 0.90 at Times 1 and 2, respectively, in the current study.

Procedure

We administered to the students a peer assessment measure of sociability, prosociality, and peer preference and self-report measures of self-orientation, group-orientation, depression, and loneliness. Teachers were asked to complete a rating scale for students concerning their social competence, behavioral problems, and learning problems. The grades on Chinese, mathematics, and English as well as leadership and distinguished studentships received by students were obtained by school records. The Western-based measures were translated to the Chinese version and then back translated to ensure comparability with the English version. All measures were administered in Mandarin. The members of our research team carefully examined the items in the measures, using a variety of strategies (e.g., repeated discussions in the research group, interviews with students and teachers, and psychometric analysis).

Participants were recruited through the schools. All students were invited to participate in the study with no criteria for exclusion. Written consent was obtained from all participants and their parents. Participants were informed that participation in the study was voluntary and there were no consequences if they refused to participate or dropped out during the study. The administration of the measures was carried out by a group of psychology faculty and graduate students in China. Extensive explanations of the procedure were provided during administration. No evidence was found that participants had difficulties understanding the procedure or the items in the measures. The original data (Time 1) were collected in 2012 to 2013 and the follow up data (Time 2) were collected in 2013 to 2014. The data collection occurred in the end of each school year (May and June), and participants had spent almost a year together before the first wave of data collection.

Data Analysis Plan

Data analysis was conducted Mplus version 8.10. To test the hypothesis, two-level hierarchical modeling was used mainly to examine the moderating effects of classroom sociable norm. Individual self- and group-orientation variables were included as individual-level predictors, and adolescents’ sex was included as a control variable at the individual level. Preliminary analyses showed that the proportion of boys and the class size did not have significant effects and thus were not included in the final analysis. Classroom sociable norm variables were included as group-level predictors. As suggested by Hofmann and Gavin (1998), individual self-orientation, individual group-orientation, and individual sociability were group-mean centered, and classroom sociable norm was grand-mean centered. The two-level full model used in the final analysis is as follows.

Level 1:

\begin{matrix} Y_{0 j} = β_{0 j} + β_{1 j} (Time 1 individual {adjustment}_{ij}) + β_{2 j} (individual self - {orientation}_{ij}) \\ + β_{3 j} (individual group - {orientation}_{ij}) + β_{4 j} (individual {sociability}_{ij}) + β_{5 j} (gender) + r_{ij}, \end{matrix}

Level 2:

β_{0 j} = γ_{00} + γ_{01} (classroom sociable {norm}_{j}) + μ_{0 j},

β_{2 j} = γ_{10} + γ_{11} (classroom sociable {norm}_{j}) + μ_{1 j},

β_{3 j} = γ_{20} + γ_{21} (classroom sociable {norm}_{j}) + μ_{2 j},

In the level 1 equation, Y_0j indicates Time 2 individual adjustment outcome and β_0j is the level 1 intercept. β_1j to β_5j are level 1 slopes for the relations between Time 1 individual adjustment, self-orientation, group-orientation, sociability, and gender with Time 2 individual adjustment. In Level 2 equations, γ₀₀ is Level 2 intercept and γ₀₁ is the Level 2 slope for predicting β_0j; γ₁₀ is Level 2 intercept and γ₁₁ is the Level 2 slope for predicting β_2j; and γ₂₀ is Level 2 intercept and γ₂₁ is the Level 2 slope for predicting β_3j. In addition, r_ij is the Level 1 residual and µ_0j, µ_1j are Level 2 residuals.

Results

Descriptive Data

The Little’s MCAR test (Little, 1988) for missing data (from 3.8% for sociability to 23.7% for academic performance) indicated that the data were missing completely at random, χ²(240) = 264.50, p = .13. As suggested by other researchers (Graham, 2009), the full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation was used to handle the missing data. At both times, boys had significant lower scores on prosociality, academic performance, and social status. Boys also had significantly higher scores on behavioral problems at both times and lower scores on teacher-rated social competence at Time 2. The means and standard deviations for both boys and girls as well as the correlations among the variables are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations of Variables.

	T1				T2
	Boys		Girls		Boys		Girls
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Self-orientation	3.13	0.61	3.07	0.59
Group-orientation	3.52	0.66	3.54	0.60
Sociability	−0.02	0.80	0.02	0.82	−0.01	0.81	0.03	0.84
Prosociality	−0.09	0.72	0.10	0.77	−0.10	0.71	0.12	0.84
Peer preference	−0.07	1.04	0.07	0.95	−0.07	1.05	0.07	0.94
Teacher-rated social competence	−0.03	0.99	0.04	0.98	−0.04	0.99	0.05	0.98
Behavioral problems	0.31	1.05	−0.32	0.80	0.28	1.07	−0.28	0.81
Academic performance	−0.23	1.05	0.22	0.90	−0.17	1.04	0.16	0.94
Social status	−0.01	0.81	0.09	0.92	−0.06	0.9	0.12	0.96
Depression	1.37	0.30	1.40	0.31	1.40	0.30	1.45	0.30
Loneliness	2.03	0.66	2.08	0.66	2.11	0.61	2.16	0.61

Table 2.

Correlations Among Variables.

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.
Time 1
1. Self-orientation
2. Group-orientation	.42***
3. Sociability	.15***	.14***
4. Prosociality	.05*	.12***	.41***
5. Peer preference	.00	.07***	.37***	.46***
6. Teacher-rated social competence	.23***	.24***	.28***	.27***	.20***
7. Behavioral problems	.10***	−.03	.02	−.25***	−.24***	−.12***
8. Academic performance	.11***	.86***	.19***	.38***	.31***	.37***	−.51***
9. Social status	.14***	.10***	.25***	.32***	.17***	.33***	−.17***	.43***
10. Depression	−.20***	−.32***	−.15***	−.11***	−.16***	−.25***	.09***	−.19***	−.13***
11. Loneliness	−.24***	−.39***	−.24***	−.09***	−.19***	−.25***	.03	−.11***	−.07***	.66***
Time 2
12. Sociability	.15***	.16***	.72***	.33***	.30***	.27***	.05*	.16***	.22***	−.16***	−.24***
13. Prosociality	.01	.10***	.36***	.71***	.38***	.24***	−.21***	.34***	.30***	−.08***	−.07***
14. Peer preference	.00	.10***	.28***	.37***	.61***	.21***	−.20***	.27***	.17***	−.15***	−.16***
15. Teacher-rated social competence	.17***	.13***	.23***	.22***	.19***	.38***	−.09***	.29***	.26***	−.18***	−.18***
16. Behavioral problems	.08***	−.02	.04	−.22***	−.18***	−.08***	.39***	−.29***	−.12***	.05*	.00
17. Academic performance	.18***	.14***	.25***	.38***	.29***	.35***	−.32***	.69***	.39***	−.18***	−.13***
18. Social status	.15***	.11***	.27***	.34***	.16***	.30***	−.13***	.37***	.43***	−.13***	−.11***
19. Depression	−.15***	−.21***	−.13***	−.09***	−.12***	−.21***	.05**	−.13***	−.10***	.58***	.43***
20. Loneliness	−.18***	−.29***	−.19***	−.07***	−.14***	−.22***	.02	−.09***	−.09***	.45***	.54***
Time 2	12.		13.		14.	15.	16.	17.	18.	19.	20.
12. Sociability
13. Prosociality	.45***
14. Peer preference	.38***		.49***
15. Teacher-rated social competence	.28***		.28***		.23***
16. Behavioral problems	.07***		−.21***		−.21***	−.14***
17. Academic performance	.24***		.38***		.33***	.43***	−.48***
18. Social status	.24***		.34***		.17***	.36***	−.19***	.48***
19. Depression	−.17***		−.09***		−.14***	−.22***	.08***	−.18***	−.14***
20. Loneliness	−.25***		−.09***		−.18***	−.23***	.02	−.10***	−.12***	.62***

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The Main Effects of Self- and Group-Orientations and Classroom Sociable Norm

The results regarding the main effects of individual- and group-level predictors and the cross-level interactions between self- and group-orientations and classroom sociable norm are presented in Table 3. For within-group associations, self-orientation at Time 1 negatively predicted Time 2 prosociality and academic performance and negatively predicted Time 2 behavioral problems. After controlling Time 1 adjustment outcome, individual sociability, self- and group-orientations, and gender, classroom sociable norm did not have significant effects on Time 2 adolescents’ adjustment outcomes.

Table 3.

Effects of Individual-Level Predictors, Group-Level Predictors, and Cross-Level Interactions on Time 2 Individual Adjustment Outcomes.

Predictor	B	SE	t Value	95% CI
Prosociality
Sex	.089	0.021	4.17***	[0.047, 0.131]
T1 Prosociality	.696	0.022	32.04***	[0.654, 0.739]
T1 Sociability	.075	0.021	3.57***	[0.034, 0.117]
Self-orientation	−.167	0.059	−2.84**	[−0.282, −0.051]
Group-orientation	.000	0.062	0.01	[−0.121, 0.121]
Classroom sociable norm	.014	0.038	0.38	[−0.061, 0.089]
T1 Self-orientation × Classroom sociable norm	.334	0.148	2.26*	[0.044, 0.623]
T1 Group-orientation × Classroom sociable norm	.086	0.157	0.55	[−0.222, 0.394]
Behavioral problems
Sex	−.323	0.048	−6.81***	[−0.417, −0.230]
T1 Behavioral problems	.333	0.035	9.61***	[0.265, 0.401]
T1 Sociability	.042	0.025	1.71	[−0.006, 0.091]
Self-orientation	.390	0.140	2.79**	[0.116, 0.665]
Group-orientation	−.103	0.161	−0.64	[−0.418, 0.213]
Classroom sociable norm	.067	0.076	0.89	[−0.081, 0.216]
T1 Self-orientation × Classroom sociable norm	−.949	0.363	−2.62**	[−1.659, −0.238]
T1 Group-orientation × Classroom sociable norm	.231	0.405	0.57	[−0.563, 1.025]
Teacher-rated social competence
Sex	.049	0.057	0.86	[−0.062, 0.160]
T1 Teacher-rated social competence	.317	0.032	9.76***	[0.253, 0.380]
T1 Sociability	.181	0.031	5.91***	[0.121, 0.241]
Self-orientation	.125	0.118	1.07	[−0.105, 0.356]
Group-orientation	.091	0.114	0.80	[−0.132, 0.313]
Classroom sociable norm	−.088	0.073	−1.22	[−0.231, 0.054]
T1 Self-orientation × Classroom sociable norm	−.058	0.332	−0.17	[−0.708, 0.593]
T1 Group-orientation × Classroom sociable norm	−.232	0.264	−0.88	[−0.748, 0.285]
Academic performance
Sex	.143	0.085	1.68	[−0.024, 0.309]
T1 Academic performance	.676	0.036	18.59***	[0.605, 0.748]
T1 Sociability	.193	0.040	4.84***	[0.115, 0.271]
Self-orientation	−.309	0.135	−2.28*	[−0.574, −0.044]
Group-orientation	.139	0.176	0.79	[−0.205, 0.484]
Classroom sociable norm	−.301	0.173	−1.74	[−0.640, 0.038]
T1 Self-orientation × Classroom sociable norm	1.147	0.403	2.85**	[0.358, 1.936]
T1 Group-orientation × Classroom sociable norm	−.218	0.447	−0.49	[−1.095, 0.658]
Social status
Sex	.108	0.037	2.96**	[0.037, 0.180]
T1 Social status	.373	0.038	9.83***	[0.299, 0.447]
T1 Sociability	.177	0.031	5.75***	[0.117, 0.237]
Self-orientation	−.135	0.090	−1.50	[−0.312, 0.042]
Group-orientation	.078	0.084	0.93	[−0.086, 0.242]
Classroom sociable norm	.023	0.042	0.54	[−0.060, 0.105]
T1 Self-orientation × Classroom sociable norm	.772	0.238	3.25**	[0.306, 1.237]
T1 Group-orientation × Classroom sociable norm	−.160	0.224	−0.72	[−0.599, 0.279]
Depression
Sex	.026	0.011	2.40*	[0.005, 0.047]
T1 Depression	.553	0.023	24.43***	[0.509, 0.597]
T1 Sociability	−.012	0.006	−1.97*	[−0.023, 0.000]
Self-orientation	.013	0.026	0.50	[−0.038, 0.064]
Group-orientation	−.068	0.030	−2.28*	[−0.126, −0.010]
Classroom sociable norm	−.051	0.074	−0.68	[−0.197, 0.095]
T1 Self-orientation × Classroom sociable norm	−.088	0.063	−1.39	[−0.211, 0.036]
T1 Group-orientation × Classroom sociable norm	.164	0.065	2.52*	[0.037, 0.291]
Loneliness
Sex	.022	0.019	1.14	[−0.016, 0.060]
T1 Loneliness	.454	0.024	18.81***	[0.406, 0.501]
T1 Sociability	−.044	0.013	−3.44**	[−0.069, −0.019]
Self-orientation	−.093	0.071	−1.31	[−0.233, 0.046]
Group-orientation	−.073	0.081	−0.90	[−0.231, 0.085]
Classroom sociable norm	−.132	0.165	−0.80	[−0.455, 0.191]
T1 Self-orientation × Classroom sociable norm	.139	0.172	0.81	[−0.198, 0.477]
T1 Group-orientation × Classroom sociable norm	.030	0.191	0.16	[−0.344, 0.405]

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The Moderating Effects of Classroom Sociable Norm

There were significant interactions between Time 1 self-orientation and classroom sociable norm in predicting Time 2 prosociality, behavioral problems, academic performance, and social status. There was also a significant interaction between Time 1 group-orientation and classroom sociable norm in predicting Time 2 depression. As suggested by previous researchers (Aiken & West, 1991), the simple slopes of each Time 2 variable on Time 1 self- and group-orientations at a high value and a low value (1 standard deviation above and 1 standard deviation below the mean) of classroom sociable norm are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Moderating effects of classroom sociable norm on the relations between Time 1 self- and group-orientation and Time 2 adjustment outcomes.

As illustrated in the figure, Time 1 self-orientation negatively predicted Time 2 prosociality in classrooms with a low sociable norm, but the association was not significant in classrooms with a high sociable norm. Time 1 self-orientation also positively predicted Time 2 behavioral problems in classrooms with a low sociable norm, but not in classrooms with a high sociable norm. Time 1 self-orientation positively predicted academic performance and social status in classrooms with a high sociable norm, but not in classrooms with a low sociable norm. The simple slope for Time 1 group-orientation and Time 2 depression tended to be positive in classrooms with a high sociable norm and negative in classrooms with a low sociable norm although they were not statistically significant.

Johnson-Neyman technique was used to examine the conditional effects of Time 1 individual self-orientation in predicting Time 2 outcomes. The results are presented in Figure 2. In general, the results indicated that adolescents with a higher self-orientation tended to have better adjustment in broad social-behavioral and academic domains in classrooms with a high sociable norm than in classrooms with a low sociable norm. Adolescents with a higher group-orientation tended to have better psychological adjustment in classrooms with a low sociable norm than in classrooms with a high sociable norm.

Figure 2.

Conditional effects of Time 1 self-orientation in predicting Time 2 adjustments.

Discussion

This current study focused on the moderating effects of classroom sociable norm on the relations between cultural orientations and adjustment among Chinese adolescents. As Chinese adolescents typically stay in the same classroom throughout middle school, the effects of classroom norms may be particularly evident. The collectivistic context and related social practices (e.g., the public evaluation process in which students are regularly evaluated by peers) may further facilitate the regulatory function of classroom norms in adolescents’ development. The results of this study indicated that classroom sociable norm is a significant factor in shaping adolescents’ development.

The Moderating Effects of Classroom Sociable Norm on the Relations Between Cultural Orientations and Adjustment

In the past several decades, the large-scale economic reforms have brought along considerable social and cultural shifts in China (Cai et al., 2020; Chen, 2015). Though the traditional group-oriented values continue to play an important role in social interactions, Western self-oriented have been increasingly endorsed by adolescents as individual autonomy, initiative taking are required for adapting to achieve success in the changing society (X. Liu et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2023). The results of the current study indicated that the significance of cultural orientations, particularly self-orientation for adolescent development, largely depended on the classroom sociable norm.

The results first indicated that classroom sociable norm moderated the relations between self-orientation and academic performance and social status. Consistent with our hypothesis, self-orientation significantly predicted higher academic performance and social status in classrooms with a high sociable norm, whereas the effects were not significant in classrooms with a low sociable norm. The classroom with a high sociable norm may serve as a context for self-oriented adolescents to explore their own interests, display independence, and gain peer status. In these classrooms, initiative-taking behaviors of self-oriented students be considered as more favorable, and they may receive more positive evaluations and encouragement from peers. The social support they receive may provide opportunities for leadership and distinguished studentship positions and, at the same time, help them engage in learning and perform on academic work. These results supported the resource-potentiating model (Kupersmidt et al., 1995); the high classroom sociable norm served to promote the strengths of self-oriented adolescents to acquire higher social status and better academic performance.

Classroom sociable norm also moderated the relations between self-orientation and later prosociality and behavioral problems. Adolescents with higher self-orientation were found to have lower prosociality and more behavioral problems in classrooms with a low sociable norm. In the environment where being socially active is perceived as an unfavorable trait, self-oriented adolescents who often demonstrate socially assertive and initiative-taking behaviors during peer interactions may experience negative peer evaluations. This environment is likely to hinder the display of prosocial behavior among self-oriented adolescents. Moreover, the adverse peer attitudes and responses are likely to elicit frustration, anger, and other negative emotions, which, in turn, result in having higher behavioral problems. These results were consistent with the stress-buffering model (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Rutter, 2013), that the classroom context with a high sociable norm served to reduce the risk of self-oriented adolescents to developmental problems.

Classroom sociable norm moderated the relations between group-orientation and depression. Adolescents with a lower group-orientation tended to have higher depression in classrooms with a low sociable norm. In classrooms where being socially active and assertive is considered a relatively undesirable trait, adolescents who are low on group-orientation and reluctant to engage in group activities and maintain social relationships are more likely than others to receive disapproval from others and experience social isolation, leading to emotional distress, such as depression. On the other hand, in classrooms where individual sociability is encouraged, adolescents with low group-orientation may experience less social challenges and difficulties. Thus, a classroom context with a high sociable norm also seems to buffer against the development of psychological problems for adolescents with a lower group-orientation.

Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations and weaknesses need to be stated. First, the current study is correlational in nature. One should be cautious in interpreting the results and drawing causal conclusions on the relations between cultural orientations and adjustment. Second, we collected two waves of data in early adolescence in this study. It will be interesting to collect multiwave longitudinal data in other developmental periods to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the relations between cultural orientations and adjustment. Third, the current study focused on classroom sociable norm. Researchers should explore other classroom norms, such as behavioral regulation norm, and their role in the relations between adolescents’ cultural orientations and adjustment.

Despite the limitations, the current study provided valuable information about the role of classroom context in the development of adolescents with different cultural orientations. The rapid development of China has led to a coexistence of different cultural values. The result of this study underscores the importance of classroom environments for attributing the “meanings” to cultural orientations in adolescents’ development. The study also has practical implications for educators and parents. Teachers and professionals should be aware of the norms in different classrooms to enhance students’ learning and performance. For example, in classrooms where sociability is perceived as undesirable, teachers should pay particular attention to the social-behavioral and academic difficulties of students who are highly self-oriented and develop effective strategies to help them in school adjustment. More generally, it is important to create an inclusive environment in school that values diverse students’ strengths through educational and intervention programs. An inclusive school environment may help students with different cultural orientations to enhance their social interaction and adjustment.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Long Hei

Dan Li

Ethical Considerations

All procedures in this study were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Shanghai Normal University.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Alexander

K. L.

Entwisle

D. R.

Blyth

D. A.

McAdoo

H. P.

(1988). Achievement in the first 2 years of school: Patterns and processes. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 53(2), 1–157. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166081

Asendorpf

J. B.

(1990). Beyond social withdrawal: Shyness, unsociability, and peer avoidance. Human Development, 33(4–5), 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1159/000276522

Asher

Hymel

Renshaw

P. D.

(1984). Loneliness in children. Child Development, 55, 1456–1464. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130015

Cai

Huang

Lin

Zhang

Wang

Zhu

Xie

Yang

Jing

. (2020). The psychological change of the Chinese people over the past half century: A literature review. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(10), 1599–1618. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.01599

Chen

. (2015). Exploring the implications of social change for human development: Perspectives, issues and future directions. International Journal of Psychology, 50(1), 56–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12128

Chen

(2018). Culture, temperament, and social and psychological adjustment. Developmental Review, 50, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.03.004

Chen

(2023). Socialization and socioemotional development in Chinese children. Cambridge University Press.

Chen

Cen

. (2005). Social functioning and adjustment in Chinese children: The imprint of historical time. Child Development, 76(1), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00838.x

10.

Chen

French

D. C.

(2008). Children’s social competence in cultural context. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 591–616. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093606

11.

Chen

Liu

(2000). Sociable and prosocial dimensions of social competence in Chinese children: Common and unique contributions to social, academic, and psychological adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 36(3), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-161649.36.3.302

12.

Chen

Liu

(2019). Father migration and mother migration: Different implications for social, school, and psychological adjustment of left-behind children in rural China. Journal of Contemporary China, 28(120), 849–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2019.1594100

13.

Chen

Wang

Liu

(2014). Loneliness in Chinese children across contexts. Developmental Psychology, 50, 2324–2333. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037689

14.

Chen

Wang

Liu

(2012). Adolescent cultural values and adjustment in the changing Chinese society. In Trommsdorff

Chen

(Eds.), Values, religion, and culture in adolescent development (pp. 235–252). Cambridge University Press.

15.

Chen

Zhou

Liu

Dai

Zhou

(2023). Enjoyment of Chinese and mathematics and school performance in Chinese children and adolescents. Child Development, 94(1), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13843

16.

Cohen

Wills

T. A.

(1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310

17.

Coie

J. D.

Dodge

K. A.

Coppotelli

(1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18(4), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.4.557

18.

Gao

Liu

Bullock

Chen

(2021). Children’s interpretation moderates relations of maternal autonomy support with sociability and assertiveness in China. Social Development, 30(2), 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12491

19.

Garandeau

C. F.

Vermande

M. M.

Reijntjes

A. H.

Aarts

(2022). Classroom bullying norms and peer status: Effects on victim-oriented and bully-oriented defending. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 46(5), 401–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025419894722

20.

Graham

J. W.

(2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530

21.

Hightower

A. D.

Work

W. C.

Cowen

E. L.

Lotyczewski

B. S.

Spinell

A. P.

Guare

J. C.

Rohrbeck

C. A.

(1986). The teacher-child rating scale: A brief objective measure of elementary children’s school problem behaviors and competencies. School Psychology Review, 15, 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1986.12085242

22.

Hofmann

D. A.

Gavin

M. B.

(1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639802400504

23.

Hofstede

(2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

24.

Bullock

Zhou

Liu

(2023). Moderating effect of classroom sociable norm on the relations between unsociability and internalizing problems in Chinese adolescents. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, Article 1168342. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1168342

25.

Jin

Chen

Liu

(2022). Longitudinal associations between prosociality and depressive symptoms in Chinese children: The mediating role of peer preference. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51, 956–966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01501-4

26.

Kagitcibasi

. (2012). Sociocultural change and integrative syntheses in human development: Autonomous-related self and social–cognitive competence. Child Development Perspectives, 6(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00173.x

27.

Kitayama

Karasawa

Curhan

K. B.

Ryff

C. D.

Markus

H. R.

(2010). Independence and interdependence predict health and wellbeing: Divergent patterns in the United States and Japan. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, Article 163. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00163

28.

Kovacs

(1992). Children’s Depression Inventory manual. Multi-Health Systems.

29.

Kupersmidt

J. B.

Griesler

P. C.

DeRosier

M. E.

Patterson

C. J.

Davis

P. W.

(1995). Childhood aggression and peer relations in the context of family and neighborhood factors. Child Development, 66(2), 360–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00876.x

30.

Ladd

G. W.

Herald

S. L.

Kochel

K. P.

(2006). School readiness: Are there social prerequisites? Early Education and Development, 17(1), 115–150. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1701_6

31.

Laursen

(2018). Peer influence. In Bukowski

W. M.

Laursen

Rubin

K. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (2nd ed., pp. 447–469). The Guilford Press.

32.

Lerner

R. M.

Lerner

J. V.

(2017). Children in their contexts: A goodness-of-fit model. In Parenting across the life span (pp. 377–404). Routledge.

33.

Coplan

R. J.

Archbell

K. A.

Bullock

Chen

(2016). Chinese kindergarten teachers’ beliefs about young children’s classroom social behavior. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.10.008

34.

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/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722

35.

Liu

G. X. Y.

Helwig

C. C.

(2022). Autonomy, social inequality, and support in Chinese urban and rural adolescents’ reasoning about the Chinese college entrance examination (Gaokao). Journal of Adolescent Research, 37(5), 639–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558420914082

36.

Liu

Chen

Zhou

Coplan

R. J.

(2017). Relations of shyness–sensitivity and unsociability with adjustment in middle childhood and early adolescence in suburban Chinese children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41(6), 681–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025416664195

37.

Liu

Chen

(2018). Self-and group-orientations and adjustment in urban and rural Chinese children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(9), 1440–1456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022118795294

38.

Masten

Morison

Pellegrini

(1985). A revised class play method of peer assessment. Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 523–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.21.3.523

39.

Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2022). The curriculum standard for compulsory education. http://en.moe.gov.cn/news/press_releases/202205/t20220507_625532.html

40.

Miyamoto

Yoo

Levine

C. S.

Park

Boylan

J. M.

Sims

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

Kawakami

Karasawa

Coe

C. L.

Love

G. D.

Ryff

C. D.

(2018). Culture and social hierarchy: Self- and other-oriented correlates of socioeconomic status across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(3), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000133

41.

Oyserman

(2017). Culture three ways: Culture and subcultures within countries. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 435–463. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033617

42.

Rubin

K. H.

Asendorpf

J. B.

(2014). Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood: Conceptual and definitional issues. In Rubin

K. H.

Asendorpf

J. B.

(Eds.), Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 3–19). Psychology Press.

43.

Rubin

K. H.

Wojslawowicz-Bowker

J. C.

Gazelle

(2010). Social withdrawal in childhood and adolescence: Peer relationships and social competence. In Rubin

K. H.

Coplan

(Eds.), The development of shyness and social withdrawal (pp. 131–156). The Guilford Press.

44.

Rudolph

K. D

. (2021). Understanding peer relationships during childhood and adolescence through the lens of social motivation. In Elliot

A. J.

(Ed.), Advances in motivation science (pp. 105–151). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2020.08.001

45.

Rutter

(2013). Annual research review: Resilience–clinical implications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(4), 474–487.

46.

Singelis

T. M.

(1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205014

47.

Somerville

L. H.

(2013). The teenage brain: Sensitivity to social evaluation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413476512

48.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

Way

Hughes

Yoshikawa

Kalman

R. K.

Niwa

E. Y.

(2008). Parents’ goals for children: The dynamic coexistence of individualism and collectivism in cultures and individuals: Topic review. Social Development, 17(1), 183−209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00419.x

49.

Terry

Coie

J. D.

(1991). A comparison of methods for defining sociometric status among children. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 867–880. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.867

50.

Thomas

Chess

(1977). Temperament and development. Brunner/Mazel.

51.

Triandis

H. C.

(1995). Individualism & collectivism. Westview Press.

52.

Zhao

Yiu

Liu

Chen

(2020). Relations between maternal power-assertive parenting and adjustment in Chinese children: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Psychology, 55(2), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12570

53.

Zhao

Chen

Liu

Yang

(2022). Maternal encouragement of competitiveness and school adjustment in Chinese adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(8), 1376–1385. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001034

54.

Zhao

Chen

Park

Liu

Cui

(2024). The development of self- and group orientations among Chinese young adolescents: Implications for social and behavioral adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 60(5), 942–953. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001719

55.

Zhao

Liu

Chen

Liu

(2023). Unsociability and psychological and school adjustment in Chinese children: The moderating effects of peer group cultural orientations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 54(2), 283–302.