The socioeducational model (Gardner, 1985; Gardner & Lambert, 1972) identified the impact of the social and cultural milieu on L2 learning and addressed the significance of learners' attitudes toward the community during L2 acquisition. The model proposed two types of motivation—integrative and instrumental—with the former referring to positive attitudes and openness to the target language group and even an eventual intention to identify with them, and the latter referring to utilitarian motives for learning another language. However, the model was not without faults. First, although it was agreed that instrumentality and integrativeness were, to a certain extent, mutually inclusive (Dörnyei, 2010; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993; Gardner, Tremblay, & Masgoret, 1997), the subjects whom Gardner and his associates investigated were quite young school learners who hence lacked consideration for future career and salaries (Dörnyei, 1994b); thus “instrumentality” was left unexplored (Oxford, 1996) and studies inevitably conveyed the incorrect impression that the socioeducational model dichotomized the two motivations (Dörnyei, 2010). What is more, some researchers have posited that integrative motivation does not exist in foreign language settings (Clement & Kruidenier, 1983; Dörnyei, 1990a, 1990b, 2003; Oxford, 1996; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Warden & Lin, 2000): According to Clement and Kruidenier (1983), the two conditions that are necessary for the generation of integrativeness are the significance of the target language and the immediacy of intercultural contact. According to Dörnyei (2003) and Clement and Kruidenier, “bookish” interest in the target language and culture has been confused with integrative motivation. Finally, the definition of integrativeness has been far from consistent because it has embraced different degrees of openness to the target community, ranging from general interest to intentional membership in the community (Gardner, 2001; Gardner & Lambert, 1972), which has unfortunately caused inconsistent operationalization of integrativeness for research purposes. Belmechri and Hummel (1998) suggested replacing integrativeness with positive attitudes, while Crookes and Schmidt (1991) proposed that integrativeness was purely a positive attitude toward a target language community. With growing recognition of the aforementioned limitations, a new socioeducational model was needed.