. . , \1. L4 . . \ ._ hmefi 0.164.. 4 l ‘vn<“‘..v . A .L‘ . utflwww. .Rfiqu .... «a (at? by > C \. . O L . Q ‘2‘. m w! . z. u v "n! ‘-V-’ M \ .' . ’ ‘ ‘. ,', .u -g} H ' 2 . ‘ u , 1‘.‘ g: . 1 _ 32 4:?! n if O 5:11.31 I 9A3." r to. . 00.1. .‘t- aluzt I ". o I '.. ... v't. , 9.; «(N :ni l . “a .N '.OV.B...'IU‘I .. . “www.mc 3 fi ‘. 5'03“; . 5.6. It‘lllnohi. ‘ c iyOoltuvé‘Ob‘rV . V 4"! In I . A ‘ ,Itr’lltvfitcl ‘III. III. ..‘ , (‘1. ‘ . 1 0| IO.‘ l“ A . . lnlhfl “ NH: ("Donn .'.1.v( oil‘rl'fiv»" I 13]" u A. {‘icw ‘ —v H . .IOCI— u . . .....‘._..A.LT -.2>\ . v . . ... | Llnqvi‘lc. I‘ "'H II: -“.*~""- > “1 “I".W‘ .J f { 2 WM ”13 _ . . w¢trilzli| .... . I: ‘ 1.31.: O. . m .WWWHWI .o: “Hum. . . I . o. a. . (.mt J43? .»| unuofhnomsh‘ ‘. c In.. v v. 4 .ll“.?‘oOonl.l\ .M.\\A‘Pu~V 9!.‘n .,'.‘ vbt..;7:h ; antiqunh nun”: . . 119...“... 13:)! {in '4 .40-: ll! {1 . n I» , . MINI... ..JI‘II .0...:l,.. 'rU.“ LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled MOTIVATIONAL STRUCTURES IN AMERICAN AND KOREAN COLLEGE STUDENTS presented by Hae-Ik Hwang has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Educatign Afflme/ggfi Major professor Richard Prawat Dmf August 14, 1987 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU LlBRARlES .—;—. RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. MOTIVATIONAL STRUCTURES IN AMERICAN AND KOREAN COLLEGE STUDENTS BY Hae-Ik Hwang A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education 1987 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled MOTIVATIONAL STRUCTURES IN AMERICAN AND KOREAN COLLEGE STUDENTS presented by Hae-Ik Hwang has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Eggggti 9L1 132% 4/42 '7‘? Major professor Richard Prawat DmC August 14, 1987 MS U is an Aninmmw ACHORI Equal Opportunity lmruuuon 0- 12771 ABSTRACT MOTIVATIONAL STRUCTURES IN AMERICAN AND KOREAN COLLEGE STUDENTS BY Hae-Ik Hwang This study explored cross-cultural difference in motivational structures between American and Korean college students in terms of the individual's (1) perceptions of intelligence, (2) causal attributions for success and failure, and (3) subsequent performance following success/ failure feedback in high and low task difficulty conditions. A "motivational structure" in this study can be defined as "a set of beliefs or perceptions of causal factors related to achievement that influence one's performance in achievement situations." In an attempt to examine motivational structures in Americans and Koreans, this study employed a 2 (American/Korean) x 2 (success/ failure manipulation) x 2 (moderately/extremely difficult task) design. The subjects consisted of 177 (American 92, Korean 85) volunteer college students. Results of both the experimental and questionnaire phases of the study appeared to support the presence of significant cultural differences between Americans and Koreans in terms of their motivational structures. Overall, as predicted, Americans possess more of an ego-oriented (ability-oriented) motivational structure, while Koreans possess more of a mastery-oriented (effort-oriented) motivational structure. Cultural differences were evident in performance to following experimental manipulation aimed at testing the so-called "egotism" explanation of findings obtained in earlier research; differences between Koreans and Americans were also apparent in the questionnaire and attribution responses: thus, subjects differed in terms of views of intelligence, the nature-nurture issue, casual attributions for success and failure, and the importance assigned to ability versus effort as an explanation for school success. These cultural differences in the various aspects of motivational structure can presumably be explained in terms of individuals' cultural backgrounds--especially socialization patterns. TO MY LATE FATHER You taught me how to handle the difficult road of life. You are the man who gave me the truth of life. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express sincere appreciation, from the bottom of my heart, to Dr. Richard Prawat, my advisor and dissertation chairman, for his encouragement, thoughtful guidance and assistance throughout the entire process of producing this manuscript, as well as for his contribution to my professional training. Not only are his contributions to the actual preparation of this manuscript appreciated, but his emotional support and encouragement as well. Mrs. Prawat's kind help to record "tape instruction" is also highly appreciated. I also wish to thank the members of my dissertation committee: Drs. Evelyn Oka, Tane Akamatsu, Charles Anderson, and Steven Raudenbush. Special thanks are in order to Dr. Oka for her thoughtful guidance and professional training. Further thanks are given to Dr. Philip Davidson for his good comment and presence during the doctoral oral defense meeting. I want to thank Drs. Patrick Scheetz and Philip Gardner for their financial assistance and contribution to my professional training in the Institute. To the Sage Foundation, I want to show special thanks for their financial support to complete this manuscripts. iv I want to thank those professors and teaching assistants who let me in their class to collect data, and to all the students who participated in this study and took their tasks so seriously. Further thanks are offered to those who gave me invaluable assistance in the pilot study procedures, back translation, data collection, scoring, coding and editing phases of this dissertation: Okhee Lee, Heayoung Chung, and other Korean students. Good comments and moral support from members of Korean Graduate Students in Education and Korean Buddhist Student Organization are also appreciated. I would also like to thank my mother for her enduring love and support not only throughout this endeavor, but all my life as well. I wish these words convey to my mother the love, respect, and appreciation I have for her. My brother, Hae-Su, contributed through his moral support as well as completing the bibliography for this manuscript. Thanks to my children, Namsun and Yusun, for enduring my many absences, as well as my moodiness at times throughout this process. Finally, I wish to thank my wife, Nami, without whose help, encouragement, unlimited patience, and understanding, this dissertation would not now be completed. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM .... ................ ........ 1 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O I O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 THE PIJRPOSE OF m STIJDY O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 9 OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ... ....... . ............. 10 CHAPTER II REVIEWOF THE LITERATURE 0............OOOOOOOOOOOOO 12 PERCEPTIONS 0F INTELLIGENCE ................... 13 Theories of Intelligence ................... 13 Views of Intelligence and Academic Achievement .................... 19 CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS OF SUCCESS AND FAILURE ... 24 Causal Attributions ....................... 24 Locus of Control .......................... 25 Roles of Ability and Effort ............... 28 Affects related to Causal Attributions .... 30 ACADEMIC ORIENTATIONS ........................ 33 Mastery Orientation ....................... 35 Ego Orientation ............................ 36 EGOTISM .................... ..... ........ ..... 38 SUMMARY ...................................... 41 CHAPTER III RESEARCHMETHODOIJOGY ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ...... 44 OVERVIEW OF DESIGN .......................... 44 SUBJECTS ................ ............ .......... 45 INSTRUMENTS .............. ..... ............... 47 PROCEDURE ................................... 51 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES .......................... 54 VARIABLES IN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS . ..... ...... 56 CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS 00.0.00.........OOOOOOOO... ..... O. 64 HYPOTHESIS 1 ................................. 64 HYPOTHESIS 2 . ........... .... ...... ........... 7O HYPOTHESIS 3 ................................. 76 HYPOTHESIS 4 ................................. 80 HYPOTHESIS 5 ............... ...... . ..... ...... 88 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ......... .............. ... 94 vi CHAPTER V Page DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ........ ............... 98 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ....................... 98 Cultural Differences ...................... 99 Implications .............................. 104 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .......... 109 APPENDICES ........................................ A. CONSENT FORM .............................. 113 B. TAPED INSTRUCTIONS ......................... 114 C. INTELLIGENCE QUESTIONNAIRE ................. 119 D. PERCEPTIVENESS SCALE ...................... 125 E. ATTRIBUTION QUESTIONNAIRE ................. 158 F. CONCEALED FIGURES TEST .................... 162 BIBLIOGMPHY ...O......OOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 17o vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Theories of Intelligence and Achievement Goals ........................ 23 2. Number of American and Korean Subjects across Treatment Groups ........ 46 3. Means of American and Korean Subjects across Treatment Groups ........ 65 4. Results of Three-way Analysis of Variance between Culture, Treat 1 and Treat 2 .... 66 5. Means and Standard Deviations for Views of Intelligence Items ...... ....... 71 6. Summary of One-way of Analysis of Variance of Students' ratings ................ ....... 71 7. Distributions of Views of Intelligence by Culture ... ..... .............. ........ 73 8. Views of Nature-Nurture influences by culture ....OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOO....... 75 9. Means and Standard Deviations for Ability and Effort Items ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 76 10. Summary of One-way of Analysis of Variance of Factors as explanation of school success .........OOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00...... ......... 78 11. Mean Ratings for Typical Causal Attributions ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 81 12. Results of Two-way Analysis of Variance for Culture and Treatl .................. 83 13. Mean Ratings for Typical Causal Affects ..... 89 14. Results of Two-way and Three-way Analysis of Variance for Typical Causal Affects ............... ....... .... 93 viii LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 'Table Page 15. A summary of Research Findings ............... 97 16. A summary of Cultural Differences .............108 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Performance for Culture by Treatment 2 .......................O.................... 67 2. Views of Intelligence by Culture .............. 74 3. Factors Explaining School Success ... .......... 77 4. Mean Ratings for Internal Attributions .................................. 0000000000 84 5. Mean Ratings for Ability Attributions ................................. ...... ..... 85 6. Mean Ratings for Self-Reward Affect ............... ........ ........ ............. 91 N P OB UC ON Academic achievement has long been an important focus of cross-cultural research. A number of recent investigations have compared the academic achievement of Asian and American children and found that Asians generally perform better than Americans, especially in mathematics (Stigler, Lee, Lucker, & Stevenson, 1982; Song & Ginsburg, 1985; Stevenson, Stigler, Lee, & Lucker, 1985; McDevitt, Hess, & Chang, 1986: Stevenson, Stigler, Lee, Kitamura, Kimura, & Kato, 1986). Why do Asians do well in academic achievement? What accounts for this finding? Throughout this study, Asians refer to those who live in the Eastern Asian countries, including China, Korea, and Japan. Although a number of studies have attempted to find out what lies behind the academic success of Asians, little agreement exists on the mechanisms for their success. Generally, two different approaches are employed to account for this phenomenon in academic achievement. First, a number of researchers agree with the hypothesis that genetic factors underlie the intellectual capacities or the efficiency of cognitive processing in human (Jensen, 1973; Vernon, 1982; Jensen & Inouye, 1980). 2 They argue that Asians are genetically superior (e.g., Vernon, 1982: Lynn, 1982). Vernon (1982), for example, argues that Asians perform higher relative to Americans on spatial, numerical, or nonverbal intelligence tests, and less well on verbal abilities and achievements. Lynn (1982) also argues that Asians' better performance in scholastic achievement can be attributed to differences in cognitive ability. This explanation has been criticized in as much as acceptance of the genetic hypothesis for within population differences (e.g., identical twin studies) provides no basis for genetic causation of between population differences (e.g., ethnic/racial differences). Stevenson and Azuma (1983) also argue that Lynn's (1982) study had serious methodological flaws. The most critical fault, according to Stevenson, is the lack of representativeness of the standardization sample in Japan. Thus, Stevenson and Azuma (1983) argue that "the lack of comparability of the standardization samples precludes the type of comparison Lynn attempted to undertake" (p. 292). A second explanation for Asians' academic superiority focuses on socio-environmental differences -- specifically, differences in cultural background. This explanation has been supported by many cross-cultural studies looking at differences in academic performance between Asians and 3 Americans (Stevenson et al., 1985: Fiske, 1984: Cunningham, 1984; McDevitt et al., 1986; Hess, Holloway, McDevitt, Azuma, Kashiwagi, Nagano, Miyake, Dickson, Price, & Hatano, 1986: Hess, Chang, & McDevitt, 1987). These findings indicate that Asians work harder and have stronger beliefs in the efficacy of effort and the malleability of human nature than do Americans. Those reared in Asian cultures obviously have different religious backgrounds compared with those of Westerners, backgrounds which are rooted in Buddhism and the traditional Confucian values of education and family. The belief that everyone can be improved by proper effort and instruction is a basic doctrine of Confucianism. According to Buddha's doctrine, a person can become a Buddha by trying hard and following the proper way. These philosophies became a dynamic force for an honor of family and a high value of education in many Asian countries, including Korea. One of the most important studies on the issue of Asian/American differences from a socio-environmental perspective is that of Stevenson and his colleagues (1985, 1986), who compared children in the United States, Japan and Taiwan. Unlike Lynn's (1982) findings, they found no significant difference in children's IQ levels, but found significant disparities in academic performance, especially in mathematics (Stigler, et al., 1982; Stevenson, et al., 4 1986). They observed that academic differences between Asians and Americans appeared as early as in kindergarten. According to Stevenson et a1. (1985), differences in home environment explained much of the performance differences between the two cultures. Parental beliefs about the importance of academic achievement influence parents' daily interactions with their children. Through these transactions, children's beliefs about the importance of academic achievement are affected. Stevenson and his colleagues (1985) support the view that Asian parents impart to their children greater motivation to achieve. They found that mothers in Japan and Taiwan are more likely to give a high rating to effort as a factor in determining their children's performance in school. In contrast, American mothers are more likely to cite innate ability as the prime variable. Thus, compared with Asian mothers, American mothers might have different expectations of their children's performance in school. Other cross-cultural studies also support this view. Hess et al. (1980) report differences in parents' expectations of the types of tasks which children are to master in America and in Japan. For example, Japanese mothers want to see early development of skills such as self-control, compliance with adult authority, and social courtesy in interaction with adults. On the other hand, mothers in the United States emphasize 5 early mastery of verbal assertiveness and social skills with peers. American children are also expected to learn to be self-reliant and independent (Tallman, Marotz-Baden, & Pindas, 1983). The present study is related to a further refinement of this second explanation -- that differences in academic achievement between Asians and Americans can be accounted for by differences in their views regarding the role of intellectual ability and effort. Presumably, these views are influenced by the socio-cultural environment, especially the traditional values embodied in Buddhism and Confucianism for many East Asian cultures. As pointed out, these philosophies lead these cultures to emphasize effort in pursuing academic success in school. In many elementary and secondary classrooms in Korea, for example, there is often a statement on the wall: "A genius can be made by one percent talent and ninety-nine percent effort." Ironically, this statement is attributed to an American inventor, Thomas A. Edison, who said, "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration." As shown by Edison's statement, Americans also seem to place great importance on effort. America is a success- oriented society whose beliefs toward achievement are inherited from the Protestant tradition with its emphasis on individualism and the work ethic (Spence, 1985). 6 According to the Protestant work ethic, people should be willing to work hard and take pride in their achievements. It also entails the belief that anyone can succeed with hard work. However, American students might be less likely to translate their beliefs about work into action compared with their Asian counterparts. They may have less pressure to perform well in school from their envoronment --especially in the home. As Stevenson et al. (1985) pointed out, American parents were much more likely to rate innate ability as a prime factor in determining their children's performance in school. Thus, they might believe that there should be limitations on what they could expect their children to perform in school. In addition to placing high value of education and effort, Confucian beliefs also stressed preserving the honor of the family. Thus, Asian students have an obligation to avoid bringing dishonor to the family. They feel strong pressure to perform well and excel in school. In Korea, for example, the loyalty of the individual toward the family surpasses all other social obligations. The family is the most determining factor in the total pattern of social organization. Compromise and self-sacrifice are traditionally displayed to maintain the family (Yu & Phillips, 1983). Furthermore, Asian mothers support, aggressively pursue, and completely commit themselves to 7 their children's education. They even feel that a sense of personal accomplishment is tied to the educational achievements of their children, and they expend great efforts in helping them (Simons, 1987). These cultural characteristics might also influence the causal attributions for academic success and failure in school. For example, individuals' causal attributions for success and failure are guided not only by situational but, more importantly, by ethnic/cultural factors (Fry & Ghosh, 1980). A number of studies have demonstrated that people in American culture assume more internal responsibility (e.g., ability or effort) for their successes than for their failures (Covington, 1984: Snyder, Stephan, & Rosenfield, 1978; Miller & Ross, 1975; Frankel & Snyder, 1978; Zuckerman, 1979). They attribute their failures to more external factors such as luck, inaccuracy of the evaluator, or task difficulty. They also assume more personal responsibility for success but less responsibility for failure under conditions of higher as opposed to lower "ego involvement" (Miller, 1976; Fry & Ghosh, 1980). In contrast, there have been some inconsistent research findings concerning causal attributions in Asian cultures. People in Asian cultures take personal responsibility for all of their performance outcomes, whether negative or positive, expected or unexpected (Murphy & Murphy, 1968), 8 success or failure outcomes (Fry & Ghosh, 1980). Other studies report that, compared with Americans, Asians attribute achievement failures to internal causes (e.g., lack of effort), but success to external (e.g., luck) causes (Chandler, Shama, Wolf, and Planchard, 1981; Triandis, 1972). Chandler et al. (1981) report that effort is the primary attribution for the Asians regardless of success or failure. Interestingly, both research studies indicate that Asians feel less of a need than Americans to protect their sense of self since they feel ready to take more personal responsibility for their failure. If Asians and Americans have different conceptions of ability and effort, and different causal attributions for success and failure, it may be concluded that Asians and Americans possess different motivational structures. A motivational structure is defined in this study as "a set of beliefs or perceptions of causal factors related to achievement that influence one's performance in achievement situations." These motivational differences could account for the academic differences between Asians and Americans. Despite some research findings supporting the possibility that those in the two cultures have different motivational structures (e.g., Stevenson et al., 1985; Hess et al., 1987), it is still not clear exactly what role motivational structures play in academic achievement. This issue raises 9 an important question. When (under what situations) do these differences affect academic performance? In other words, how do various situations--success or failure, high or low task difficulty situations--affect academic performance? This question must clearly be answered if we are to achieve a better understanding of why Asians and Americans perform differently in school. This study focuses on differences of the motivational structures between Americans and Asians, and their effects on academic achievement behaviors. THE_£QBEQ§E_QE_IHE_§IHDX The purpose of this study is to explore cross-cultural differences between American and Korean college students in terms of their: 1) perceptions of intelligence: 2) attributions for success versus failure; and 3) subsequent performance following success/failure feedback in high or low task difficulty conditions. It is hypothesized that Americans possess an ability-oriented motivational structure, and Asians (i.e., Koreans in this study) possess a mastery or effort-oriented motivational structure. Thus, the following research questions were examined in order to test the hypotheses: 10 1. Do Asian and American students have different perceptions of intellectual ability (intelligence)? 2. Do Asian and American students have different attributions/affects following success/failure feedback? 3. After success/failure feedback, do Asian and American students show different subsequent performance in the face of high or low task difficulty situations? The central hypothesis of this study is that cultural differences in academic performance between Asians and Americans can be explained as a function of different motivational structures. This hypothesis may be viewed as a rival to genetic causation theories. A series of predictions were advanced to explore cross-cultural differences between American and Korean students as outlined above. OVERVIEW OF THE STUD! As an attempt to examine motivational structures between Korean and American college students, this study used a 2 (American, Korean) x 2 (success, failure) x 2 (perceived task difficulty: moderately, extremely) design. College students in both countries were given two tasks (the "Perceptiveness Scale" and the "Concealed Figures Test") and two questionnaires (Intelligence and Attribution 11 Questionnaires). Results on the Perceptiveness Scale used Pin the first task were manipulated to produce a success or failure experience. Following this manipulation, a second task (the Concealed Figures Test) was described as being either moderately or extremely difficult. The number of correct responses on this measure was considered the primary dependent variable. Chapter I has outlined the research problem, provided a rationale for, and stated the purpose of the present investigation. Chapter II reviews prior relevant research on perceptions of intelligence, causal attributions for success and failure, academic orientations, and the egotism explanation. Chapter III describes the research methodology involved in this study, including sample characteristics, instrumentation, data collecting procedures, research hypotheses, and statistical analysis procedures. Chapter IV presents data analysis and research findings. Finally, Chapter V discusses the results, as well as the study's limitations and recommendations for future research. 12 The following literature review selectively presents research findings pertinent to our understanding of different motivational structures between Americans and Asians. A number of motivational factors have been hypothesized to explain academic differences between Asians and Americans. This review of the literature is divided into three sections: issues of Asian/American cultural differences in 1) perceptions of intelligence, 2) causal attributions for success and failure, and 3) academic orientations in the face of perceived task difficulty. The intention of this review is not to provide a comprehensive review, rather a selective and representative one. Section one reviews literature relevant to an understanding about perceptions of intelligence, including implicit and explicit theories of intelligence. Section two reviews the literature on causal attributions for success and failure and the role of ability and effort. Section three reviews the literature on achievement orientations. The terms, mastery versus ego orientations, are identified and research related to them is reviewed. Section four reviews some research studies on the egotism hypothesis, one of the explanations of the ego defense 13 mechanism. Finally, section five summaries the literature reviews and overview of this study. T G NC W: Intelligence is one of the most elusive concepts in psychology. Despite its crucial importance to those involved in classroom teaching and to those who conduct research on intelligence, little agreement exists on the meaning of intelligence. There have been suggested two kinds of theories of intelligence: explicit and implicit (Sternberg, 1985; Sternberg & Powell, 1982). Sternberg and Powell (1982) explain that explicit theories of intelligence are: based, or at least tested, on data collected from people performing tasks presumed to measure intelligent functioning. For example, a battery of mental ability tests might be administered to a large group of people and the data from these tests analyzed in order to isolate the proposed sources of intelligent behavior in test performance (p. 975). A number of researchers approach intelligence in this way (e.g., Cattell, 1963, 1971: Jensen, 1973; Guilford, 1967, 1982). Because of the emphasis on individual differences, these researchers attempt to understand 14 intelligence in terms of a set of underlying abilities - verbal ability, mathematical ability, problem-solving ability, and so forth. In contrast to explicit theories of intelligence, Sternberg and Powell (1982) explained that implicit theories of intelligence are: based, or at least tested, on people's conceptions of what intelligence is: Implicit theories need to be "discovered" rather than "invented" because they already exist, in some form, in people's heads. The goal in research on such theories is to find out the form and content of people's informal theories (p. 977). Theorists of implicit intelligence define intelligence in terms of what it is that most people mean by the term. In this view, the basic question is whose conceptions of intelligence should be used in determining intelligence -- experts or laypersons. An expert is different from a layperson in terms of professional training and knowledge in the field of intelligence. An expert prefers an analytic approach, abstract solutions, and use of logic as opposed to a more global approach, concrete solutions, and the use of emotion. The best known example of the experts' concept of the scope of intelligent behavior is contained in series of symposium papers that appeared in the Journal of Educational ngghglggy ("Intelligence and its 15 Measurement," 1921, cited by Sternberg, Conway, Ketron, & Bernstein, 1981, p.38). Fourteen experts gave their views on the nature of intelligence. Sternberg (1985) summarizes their definitions of intelligence as follows: 1. The ability to give responses that are true or factual (E.L.Thorndike). 2. The ability to carry on abstract thinking (L.M.Terman). 3. The ability to learn to adjust oneself to the environment (S.S.Colvin). 4. The ability to adapt oneself to relatively new situations in life (R.Pintner). 5. The capacity for knowledge and knowledge possessed (V.A.C. Henmon). 6. A biological mechanism by which the effects of a complexity of stimuli are brought together and given a somewhat unified effect in behavior (J.Peterson). 7. The ability to inhibit an instinctive adjustment, to redefine the inhibited instinctive adjustment in the light of imaginally experienced trial and error, and to realize the modified instinctive adjustment into overt behavior to the advantage of the individual as a social animal (L.L.Thurstone). 8. The ability to acquire abilities (H.Woodrow). 9. The ability to learn or to profit by experience (W.F.Dearborn) (p. 6). This approach has the advantage of being based upon consensus of experts in the field of intelligence. However, experts' views of intelligence cannot be, of course, guaranteed to be correct. Thus, it is necessary to look at another view cf intelligence: the layperson's view of intelligence. 16 If intelligence can be viewed as a socio-environmental concept, we have to look at the laypersons' views of intelligence. More recently, a number of studies have been conducted using this approach (Sternberg et al., 1981; Yussen & Kane, 1983, 1985: Siegler & Richards, 1982). Siegler and Richards (1982) asked children and adult subjects to list five characteristics that they thought best characterized an intelligent adult and to rate them according to relative importance. Five characteristics were suggested: reasoning, verbal ability, problem solving, learning, and creativity. Siegler and Richards (1982) found a developmental trend that, with increasing age, problem solving and reasoning became more important, whereas perceptual and motor abilities became less important. Learning ability and verbal ability were regarded as important at all ages. Yussen and Kane (1983, 1985) also supported the developmental change in conceptions of intelligence. They asked children at the first, third, and sixth grades about their conceptions of intelligence. The specific issues studied in their questionnaire were: 1) Visible signs of intelligence (whether it is possible to spot intelligence in people from overt things they do), 2) Qualities associated with intelligence (Whether intelligent people can be distinguished from others on the basis of a number 17 of mental, school-related, physical, and social skills), 3) The influence of nature and nurture on intelligence, 4) The constancy or malleability of intelligence (whether bright or dull individuals necessarily remain so throughout childhood and, if not, what factors might contribute to change), 5) A general definition of intelligence, and 6) An assessment of their own relative intelligence (p. 112). Yussen and Kane (1983, 1985) found that older childrens' conceptions of intelligence were more differentiated than those of younger children. Older children were more likely to include references to academic behaviors and skills, whereas younger children included comments concerning social behaviors and traits. With increasing age, children characterized intelligence as an internalized quality; that is, older children were less likely than younger ones to think there were overt signs of intelligence (i.e., look or talk differently). On the nature-nurture question, younger children were more likely to agree with the nature (born) view. Older children generally emphasized experiences more than younger children. The laypersons' views of intelligence as a basis for defining intelligence have a certain advantage compared to the experts' views of intelligence (Sternberg & Powell, 1982). That is, the layperson is less likely to be biased 18 by current scientific views of intelligence. Furthermore, according to Sternberg et al. (1981), laypersons' views of intelligence are very similar to those of experts. That is, the two groups seem largely to agree on what behaviors are characteristics of "an ideally intelligent person." Most research studies suggested that intelligence can be viewed as a social-environmental concept. For example, the conceptions of intelligence are different in terms of age of subjects (Siegler & Richards, 1982; Yussen & Kane, 1983, 1985). If intelligence is a social-environmental concept, and it is true, then it can be assumed that people in different cultures may vary in their conceptions of what intelligence is and how it is acquired. However, few cross-cultural studies have been done in this field. In order to examine cultural differences in terms of conceptions of intelligence, the layperson's view of intelligence is preferred. As Sternberg and his colleagues point out, the layperson is less likely to be biased by current scientific view of intelligence (Sternberg & Powell, 1982), and the laypersons' and experts' view of intelligence are very similar (Sternberg et al., 1981). 19 V’ w t ' n A d 'c c ’ev me t In the past decade, a new trend has emerged in the study of motivation. Research in motivation began to emphasize cognitive-motivational mediators rather than external contingencies. That is, how do students interpret events in academic situations? Many investigators suggested that motivational factors, other than level of ability, influence whether students persist or withdraw in the face of difficulty, and whether they show declines or gains in performance following failure feedback. For instance, some students show lower performance following failure feedback, while others maintain or improve their performance in the face of failure (e.g., Anderson & Jennings, 1980; Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980). What explains these differences between students? One of the most important variables may be the student's interpretation of failure, what he thinks caused it, and whether he thinks it can be overcome. The link between such an interpretation and performance following failure has been found to be an important determinant of behavior in achievement situations. For example, if the individual perceives that he is unable to overcome failure, it can have highly debilitating effects on performance, as seen in studies on learned helplessness (e.g., Dweck & Reppucci, 1973: Miller & Norman, 1979; Diener & Dweck, 1980: Dweck, 1975: Dweck & Wortman, 1982). 20 Dweck and her colleagues (Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980; Dweck & Bempechat, 1983) distinguish between two types of responses in achievement-related behavior, those which exhibit a mastery orientation and those which display a helplessness orientation. Mastery-oriented children perceive that they can avoid or overcome failure and tend to see failure as resulting from lack of effort or motivation. Such children tend to regard failure as useful information and within their control. That is, despite failure feedback, mastery-oriented children believe that their expanded effort can reverse the outcome, and they rarely seem to doubt their ability to eventually achieve success. In contrast, helpless children show debilitated performance under failure feedback and do not emphasize effort as an important cause of their failures. Instead, they often view failure as resulting from lack of ability. This interpretation is accompanied by the belief that they cannot overcome failure regardless of how much effort they might exert. They seem to maintain this belief even though it is contradicted by their past success. Past success is not sufficient to maintain the belief in their ability to reverse failure. Fortunately, it is possible to teach such children that failures can be attributed to their own lack of effort or ineffective strategies, rather than lack of 21 ability, by providing ways to so that they can overcome their learned helplessness (Dweck, 1975; Anderson & Jennings, 1980; Fowler & Peterson, 1981). What might behind these different outcomes? Dweck and her colleagues (Dweck & Elliott, 1983: Dweck & Bempechat, 1983) suggest that two general views or beliefs of intelligence predict children's choice of achievement goals. The first view, which Dweck and Bempechat (1983) call an "entity" view, refers to the belief that intelligence is "a rather stable, global trait" (p.243). This view of intelligence limits the utility of the individual's efforts and it is most characteristic of older children and adults (Nicholls & Miller, 1984). Children who subscribe to this view tend to have goals related to competence, referred to as "performance goals" (Dweck & Elliott, 1983). They behave as if "they possess a specific, fixed amount of ability, and that this ability is displayed through performance" (p.243). Performance, then, indicates whether they are bright or not bright. The second view, called an "incremental" (or instrumental) view of intelligence, refers to the belief that intelligence consists of "an ever-growing repertoire of skills and knowledge, one that is increased through one's own instrumental behavior" (Dweck & Bempechat, 1983, p.244). This view of intelligence is most characteristic 22 of younger children (Nicholls & Miller, 1984). Children who hold an incremental view of intelligence tend to have goals related to learning, referred to as "learning goals" (Dweck & Elliott, 1983). Learning goals involve "seeking to acquire knowledge or skills, to master or understand something new" (Dweck & Elliott, 1983, p.645). These two achievement goals will be discussed more in detail later. Table 1 summarizes the key issues differentiating incremental from entity views of intelligence. Some recent research has focused on the implications these different beliefs have for persistence and performance on intellectual tasks (Dweck & Bempechat, 1983; Sexton, Licht, Brown, & Linden, 1984; Nicholls & Miller, 1984). Children with an entity view of intelligence are more likely to avoid the risk of making mistakes and are more prone to debilitation in the face of failure than are children with an incremental view of intelligence. Probably, failure feedback might lead students who subscribe an entity view of intelligence to conclude that they have low ability. They should have more devastating implications if they view their ability as stable than if they view their ability as capable of increasing with effort. Thus, such beliefs that one's ability is stable and the outcome is beyond one's control leads the individual to be more vulnerable in the face of failure. 23 Table 1 Theories of Intelligence and Achievement Goals Theories of Intelligence Incremental Entity Ability is: Effort is: Entering Question: Errors: Uncertainty: Optimal Task: Standards: Expectancy: Teacher: Value: A repertoire of skills that increases through effort An investment that increases ability. How can I do it ? What will I learn ? Natural, useful Challenging Maximizes learning (becoming smarter) Personal, long-term, flexible Emphasizes effort Resource, guide Intrinsic value of skill, activity, progress A global, stable entity whose adequacy is judged through performance. A risk that may reveal low ability. Can I do it ? Will I look smart ? Failure Threatening Maximizes looking smart Normative, immediate, rigid Emphasizes present ability Judge, rewarder/ punisher Extrinsic value of judgment Source: Dweck & Elliott (1983) p. 655. 24 S U I 8 OR SUCC SS N A a t ' t' According to Weiner (1972, 1974, 1979, 1984), achievement behavior is determined by causal attributions related to success and failure. Attributional theorists are concerned with people's responses to "why" questions (i.e., "Why did I succeed ?", "Why did I fail ?"), or "the relationship between phenomena (effects) and the reasons (reasonable agents) for those events" (Weiner, 1972, p.310). The types of causal attributions that children and adults make to explain academic and other types of achievement successes and failures have been identified. They are ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck. These were not the only perceived determinants of success or failure in previous research (e.g., Weiner, 1979), but they appeared as the most salient and general causes. Weiner (1979) concluded that these attributions mediate changes in expectations for future success as well as affective reactions to performance outcomes. Basically, the attributional approach proposes that it is not reality per se (i.e., actual success or failure) that affects a person's behavior, but rather the person's interpretation of that reality. An individual's causal attributions for success and failure may vary with different cultural backgrounds 25 (Evans, 1981: Lao, 1977; Chandler et al., 1981; Hess et al., 1987). Chandler et al. (1981) conducted a cross-national investigation on perceived causes of success and failure. They reported that individuals made differential attributions depending upon the success or failure of their achievement-related behaviors and their cultural backgrounds. For example, American students attributed their achievement success significantly more to their own ability or effort than was the case with their achievement failures. In contrast, Japanese students attributed their achievement success to effort and luck, and their failure to lack of effort. W Weiner (1979) has suggested three dimensions of attributions: locus, stability, and controllability. The locus dimension distinguishes causes believed to be personal or internal (e.g., ability or effort) from those believed to be environmental or external (e.g., luck or task difficulty). The stability dimension distinguishes the causes perceived as changeable over time from causes perceived as more stable. Related to the stability dimension is a "globality" dimension suggested by Abramson, Seligman, and Teasdale (1978). This dimension distinguishes attributions that are task specific from ones 26 that are more global. For example, "I failed because I'm not good at mathematics," versus "I failed because I'm not smart." According to Abramson et al. (1978), global attributions of failure to lack of ability are associated with general negative motivational patterns, such as, learned helplessness. The controllability dimension distinguishes causes perceived as controllable from those perceived as uncontrollable. Despite the recognition of the role of cultural factors on attributional processes, there is little observational data regarding the kinds of causal explanations or mechanisms that individuals from different cultural backgrounds employ in their causal attributions for success and failure. A number of cross-cultural investigations have examined attribution of causality and locus of control of reinforcement (Lao, 1977: Chandler, et al., 1981; Fry & Ghosh, 1980; Evans, 1981). In most studies, Americans seem to be more internal ascriptions of their performance than individuals from Asian cultures. In individually-oriented cultures, there is a higher dependency on the "self," and individuals are less under the control of family or social-environmental factors. Thus, one would expect individuals from this kind of culture to be more internally oriented. Specifically, they might engage in self-enhancing attributions under success situations, and 27 self-protective attributions under failure situations. Several studies have demonstrated and supported this view. For example, individuals in the American culture assume more internal responsibility for their success than for their failures (Snyder, Stephan, & Rosenfield, 1976: Zuckerman, 1979: Miller, 1976; Fry & Ghosh, 1980). In contrast, other studies supported that Asian students are the most internal in causal ascriptions for failures and the least internal for successes. They attributed achievement failures more to lack of effort than their successes to their own efforts (e.g., Triandis, 1972: Chandler et al., 1981). Gender is another factor that must be considered. According to some research findings (e.g., Bar-Tal, 1978; Dweck, Goetz, & Strauss, 1980), males tend to attribute their successes, but not their failures to internal, stable causes (e.g., ability), while females tend to take personal responsibility for their failures, but not for their successes. Most cross-cultural studies have used Rotter's Internal-External (I-E) Scale (e.g., Evans, 1981). Munro (1979), however, criticized the use of a generalized locus of control scale (e.g., the Rotter I-E Scale) in cross-cultural studies. He pointed out that the use of a generalized locus of control scale "fails to systematically 28 vary situations, agents of action, outcomes, and consequences" (p. 208). Thus, he suggested construction of a balanced questionnaire in terms of academic, social, and general situations, positive and negative outcomes, agents of action, and personal or impersonal consequences. Bgles 9: Ability and Effgzt The theme of competence plays an important role in a person's life. Views of competence, along with motivational factors, affect the pursuit of achievement goals and determine the quality of an individual's learning and performance. This is why teachers and parents strive to encourage and develop a culturally-appropriate view of competence in their children. What is competence ? Competence refers to "the ability to perform a culturally specified task" (Ogbu, 1981, p.414). Ability can also be defined as a set of skills which makes it possible to perform a meaningful task. The two terms, competence and ability, are used slightly differently, but often interchangeably in this area of research. The term ability is uniformly used in this study. Effort and ability are important personal or internal causes of failure or success. That is, achievement outcomes frequently depend upon "what we can do and how hard we try to do it" (Weiner, 1979). Therefore, it is 29 necessary to distinguish between what is ability, and what is effort. According to Nicholls (1978): The concepts of effort and ability are logically interdependent. A definition of the concept of ability implies the concept of effort, and vice versa. Ability refers to what a person can do, and evidence of optimum effort is required before we accept performance as indicative of ability. This concept of ability implies that ability limits the extent to which effort can increase performance (p.800). Many researchers have explored the different meanings of ability and effort and their interaction from early childhood to adulthood (e.g., Nicholls, 1978, 1984: Nicholls & Miller, 1983: Harari & Covington, 1981: Stipek, 1981, 1984), and from country to country (Stevenson et al, 1985: McDevitt et al., 1986: Hess et al., 1987). For young children, for example, ability is thought to refer to one's previous level of performance - high ability means higher performance than before. Many studies support this view. Young children typically overestimate their future performance and that performance predictions decrease with age. Until the age of about six or seven, children maintain high expectations for success, despite poor achievement on past performance (e.g., Dweck & Bempechat, 1983: Stipek & Hoffman, 1980: Stipek, 1984: Nicholls & Miller, 1984). 30 What explains developmental changes in children's achievement beliefs? According to Dweck and her colleagues (Dweck & Elliott, 1983: Dweck & Bempechat, 1983), younger children have incremental (instrumental) views of intelligence based on criterion-referenced standards that rely on continued improvement over past performance as tasks are mastered. They assume that ability is changeable and that it improves through effort and experience. They also think that anyone can become brighter over time. This is consistent with Nicholls' view (1978, 1984) that ability and effort are not differentiated by young children. In contrast, the concept of ability as being more stable or fixed emerges as the child gets older. In this "entity" view of intelligence, judgments of ability are based on normative standards (Harari & Covington, 1981: Stipek, 1981). e e e 0 us tt ' utio s Weiner (1979, 1982, 1984) argued that there are multiple sources of emotional reactions following success and failure. Causal dimensions also play an essential role in states of feeling. For example, Weiner (1982, 1985) reported that pleasant affect is associated with internal attributions (e.g., ability or effort) for success, and external attributions (e.g., luck or task difficulty) for failure. 31 McFarland and Ross (1982) also conducted a study to assess the impact of outcome (success versus failure) and attributional dimension (internal versus external) on affect in an achievement setting. In their 2 (success, failure) x 2 (ability attribution, task attribution) design, results showed that success produced greater positive affect, less negative affect, and higher feelings of self-esteem than failure only when ability attributions were caused. That is, attributions (e.g., ability, effort, task difficulty, etc.) are the primary determinants of emotional reactions to success and failure. On the other hand, a number of studies have shown that there was a set of outcome-dependent affects regardless of -the "why" of the outcome (Weiner, 1979, 1982: Weiner, Russell, & Lerman, 1978). That is, there were broadly positive or negative reactions to success versus failure regardless of causal attributions of the outcome. For example, in a success situation, feelings of satisfaction, pride, and so on, would be reported. Given failure, there were several outcome-dependent affects such as guilt, shame, and so on. Studies conducted by Weiner and his colleagues, using the attributional model of achievement-related behavior, suggest that high shame following failure is experienced under high-effort conditions (Brown & Weiner, 1984: Weiner, 32 Heckhausen, Meyer, & Cook, 1972). In contrast, Covington and his colleagues, using the self-worth theory of achievement-related behavior, suggest that high shame following failure is associated with low-effort conditions (Covington & Beery, 1976: Covington & Omelich, 1984). Covington and Omelich (1985) provided a resolution of these apparently contradictory findings. They suggested that shame consisted of an ability-linked component (humiliation) and an effort-linked and moral-like component (guilt). Stipek (1983) also suggested that the experiences of pride and shame are considered major determinants of behavior and practical significance in achievement situations. She argued that there are four qualities of pride and shame: first, affect must be perceived as contingent upon the subject's own characteristics: second, perception of control is believed to have an enhancing effect on these emotions but not to be a prerequisite: third, pride and shame are closely related to individuals' perceptions of their self-worth; and finally, pride and shame don't need real external reproach because the individual has internalized values set by others. If these emotional reactions are socio-environmental concepts, they might be affected by cultural beliefs/ values. Generally, the cultural values reinforced and 33 fulfilled the other values and kept them together in the whole value/belief system. They provided for the accepted emotional display in everyday situations. All cultures might have their own institutionalized mode and degree of expression of such emotional reactions as anger, pride, shame, pleasure and guilt. Because the unrestricted display of some emotions (e.g., anger) might lead to the disruption of the individual or society. For example, in Korea as a group-oriented culture, the emotional display was historically inhibited: calmness and self-control was highly valued (Yu & Phillips, 1983). Compared with an ego- or individually-oriented culture, the display of personal emotion might be relatively restricted in group-oriented culture. C N O N N Several recent studies highlight motivation as a key factor in accounting for what Stevenson and his colleagues (1985, 1986) call the "devastating“ performance of Americans compared with Asians, especially in mathematics. These studies indicate that motivational factors are relatively more important in explaining success in Asian cultures as opposed to those in the United States. 34 Recent investigations in the area of achievement motivation have begun to examine the factors that influence the quality of motivation and learning of the individual in achievement-related situations. One of the most important factors seems to be the individual's goal orientation. Individuals' achievement-related behavior is motivated by their goal orientation, and they behave in ways to satisfy their goal orientation. Two types of achievement-related goal orientations influence students to adopt and maintain active learning. These orientations have been referred to task- versus ego-involved (Maehr, 1983; Nicholls, 1983, 1984), as learning- versus performance-orientation (Dweck, 1986: Dweck & Elliott, 1983: Dweck & Bempechat, 1983), competitive- versus work and mastery orientation (Spence & Helmreich, 1983), and as mastery- versus ability-focused (Ames, 1984: Ames & Ames, 1984). The terms task-involved, learning- and mastery- orientation stand for similar goal orientations. On the other hand, the terms ego-involved, performance-, competitive-, and ability-orientation refer to similar goal orientations. Thus, they are called mastery and ego orientation, respectively, throughout this study. 35 Wen Much research has shown that individuals may have the most adaptive achievement-related behavior when they adopt a mastery orientation (Deiner & Dweck, 1978: Dweck & Elliott, 1983: Harter, 1981: Nicholls, 1983: Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985; Meece & Blumenfeld, 1987; Ames & Archer, 1987). Mastery orientation is defined in terms of two highly correlated, but conceptually distinct views about performance: One is an attributional belief in the importance of effort, and the other belief relates to the nature of ability or intelligence. Mastery oriented individuals are thought to subscribe to what Dweck and Elliott (1983) define "incremental" view of intelligence. Thus, effort and ability are not viewed as causal competitors by the mastery-oriented individual. Individuals with mastery orientation competently engage in tasks with enthusiasm and focus on the task at hand rather than on the self. Their behavior is intrinsically motivated, and the feelings of success and satisfaction are derived from built-in qualities of the task (i.e., level of challenge or interest) and from learning itself (Dweck & Bempechat, 1983: Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Harter, 1981; Nicholls, 1983). Mastery oriented individuals feel successful when they make sense of something new or improve their performance through their effort. This is because 36 their goal is to acquire skills and knowledge, not to demonstrate high ability or gain social approval. Some recent research has focused on the implications that these different definitions have for persistence and performance on intellectual tasks (Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980: Dweck & Elliott, 1983: Nicholls & Miller, 1984: Sexton, Licht, Brown, 8 Linden, 1984). Research findings indicate that individuals tend to make different types of attributions when clear success or failure has occurred. According to Dweck and her colleagues (Diener & Dweck, 1978: 1980: Dweck & Bempechat, 1983), for example, individuals who perceive that they can avoid or overcome failure regard failure feedback as resulting from lack of effort or motivation. Such individuals tend to regard failure as useful information and within their control. That is, despite the occurrence of failure, they believe that their escalated effort can reverse the outcome, and they seldom seem to doubt their ability to attain success sooner or later. Ego Oriantation Ego-oriented individuals demonstrate failure avoidant behavior and become engaged with thoughts about their ability and the consequences of failure for their self-esteem. Nicholls (1979, 1983) suggested three aspects 37 of ego-orientation. First, the individual is preoccupied with the self-with avoiding looking stupid-rather than with learning something new. Second, learning something is less valued: learning is not an end in itself. Learning is used only as a means of looking smart or avoiding looking stupid. Thus, ego-oriented individuals' attention is focused on the self rather than learning itself. Third, ability is more valuable than effort. Ego-oriented individuals believe that learning something through effort indicates high ability only when others need more effort for the same learning or if others learn less with the same effort. Thus, they may use effort as a means to demonstrating high ability. They have entity views of intellectual ability. When individuals engage in an ego orientation, they are mainly concerned with the anticipated rewards and punishment for their performance or with other external considerations (Brophy, 1983). At this point, ego-oriented individuals are not interested in learning: they behave as passive recipients of information, show little persistence on difficult tasks, and avoid or resist challenging tasks. Some recent research in the classroom has shown that ego-oriented students talk mainly about getting work done rather than trying to understand what was being taught as the goal for their classroom task (Brophy, 1983). 38 Ego-oriented individuals give up easily when confronted with difficulty. They often depend on defensive strategies to reduce their anxiety such as reducing their effort, avoiding challenging tasks, seeking answers from others, or devaluing the importance of school work (Covington & Beery, 1976: Covington & Omelich, 1979: Covington, 1984; Meece, 1981). They sometimes engage in such activities because they want to avoid negative implications of low ability in the case of failure performance. EQQII§M Generally, an individual attempts to enhance or protect self-esteem by taking internal responsibility for his or her successes and attributing his or her failures to external factors. This dual tendency has been called the self-serving bias ( Miller & Ross, 1975: Zuckerman, 1979), egocentric perception (Heider, 1958: cited by Covington, 1984), egotism (Snyder, Stephan, & Rosenfield, 1976, 1978: Snyder, Smoller, Strenta, & Frankel, 1981), or self-worth motive (Covington, 1984). These terms are used slightly differently, but they all contain the individual's motive for the maintenance of positive self-esteem. For the purposes of this study, the term "egotism" is used throughout. 39 Thus, egotism can be defined as a motivational cognition in which attributions about success and failure feedback serve to protect or enhance one's self-esteem. Snyder et al. (1978) suggested that two factors are necessary to threaten self-esteem in achievement-related situations. First, the outcome of performance (i.e., success or failure) must be attributed to the self. Second, the attribution must be related to self-esteem. They called these factors "outcome/attribution factor" and "attribution/self-esteem factor," respectively. If both factors are not present at the same time, there is no threat to self-esteem. These two factors can be explained by the term ego-involvement. When individuals perceive a task as very important and are expected to assume personal responsibility for the task outcome, they often generate a state of high ego involvement. In contrast, individuals in certain situations do not perceive a task to be very important and the task outcome is therefore not very threatening. These individuals are assumed to be in a state of low ego involvement. Miller (1976) demonstrated that individuals would assume more personal responsibility for success and less responsibility for failure under high than low ego involvement. Thus, it can be argued that high or low ego involvement conditions may influence individuals to employ different causal explanations to account for their successes and failures. 40 There is some evidence that individuals engage in self-enhancing attributions under conditions of success, but only minimal evidence that individuals engage in self-protective attributions under conditions of failure (Miller & Ross, 1975). In a recent meta-analysis of children's causal attributions for success and failure in achievement settings (Whitley & Frieze, 1985), variations in the wording of attributional questions and the research context were included as factors in the meta-analysis. The findings supported the egotism hypothesis that success tended to be attributed to the internal causes of ability and effort, and failure, to the external causes of luck and task difficulty. Frankel and Snyder (1978) supported the egotism hypothesis in their interesting research design. They manipulated problem solvability with two levels of perceived task-difficulty: moderately and extremely difficult. According to the egotism approach, when a future task is described as extremely difficult, task performance following failure should be increased. That is, subjects previously given unsolvable problems (failure experience) perform better when told that a future task is extremely difficult than those told a future task is moderately difficult. The results of Frankel and Snyder's study supported the egotism explanation that subjects who 41 were given unsolvable problems performed better on subsequent task if it was described as extremely difficult. There is no shame in failing such a difficult task because its extreme difficulty can justify the failure outcome. Therefore, individuals in this situation were more likely to work up to their potential, and thus performed better. §HMMABX Several recent studies highlight motivation as a key factor in accounting for academic success in Asian cultures as opposed to the United States (e.g., Stevenson et al., 1985). This study builds on this earlier work. The main hypothesis can be stated as follows: Given cultural differences in the emphasis placed on effort versus ability as a salient factor in performance, it is hypothesized that American and Asians have different motivational structures. That is, Americans possess an ability-oriented motivational structure, and Asians (i.e., Korean in this study), an effort-oriented motivational structure. Ability-oriented motivational structures emphasize "striving to maintain a favorable perception of one's ability. That is, the goal of the behavior is to maximize the subjective probability of attributing high ability to oneself" (Maehr & Nicholls, 1980. pp. 236-237). 42 Effort-oriented motivational structures emphasize "maximizing the chances of attributing high effort to oneself and minimizing the chances of attributing low effort to oneself" (Maehr & Nicholls, 1980, p. 241). Causal attributions of success and failure are guided not only by situational factors but also by cultural backgrounds that lead to varying levels of ego involvement in individuals. Research findings show that, the higher the ego-involvement, the greater the threat to self-esteem in failure situations (Fry & Ghosh, 1980). In order to provide high/low ego-involvements in this study, information on the task difficulty (moderate versus extreme difficulty) was manipulated as was done by Frankel and Snyder (1978). Specifically, the second task administered --the Concealed Figures Test (primary dependent variable)-- was described as either moderately or extremely difficult. If American subjects endorse an entity view of intelligence, and respond to failure in a way that suggests egotism in high ego-involved situations, then one of the main hypotheses of this study that Asians and Americans possess different motivational structures would be supported. The different motivational structures are, in turn, rooted in different cultural belief system and family structures. 43 WW3; Differential socialization processes [Not tested in this study] I l V ----> Cultural differences in attributional thinking and in ways that people view intelligence [Intelligence Questionnaire in this study] ----> Different motivational structures (i.e., mastery versus ego orientation) [Experimental Treatment in this study] ----> Different kinds of responses to success and failure on intellectual tasks [Attribution Questionnaire in this study] | l V ----> Differential performance in school (science or math) [Not tested in this study] 44 CHAPT I N TH D O VIEW OF ES G This study used experimental procedures to examine motivational structures in Korean and American college students. In an attempt to examine motivational structures of Korean and American college students, this study employed a 2 (American/Korean) x 2 (Success/Failure) x 2 (Perceived task difficulty: Moderately/Extremely difficult) design. Both groups of college students were given two tasks (The Perceptiveness Scale and The Concealed Figures Test) and two questionnaires (Intelligence Questionnaire and Attribution Questionnaire). Results on the Perceptiveness Scale used in the first task were manipulated to produce either a "success" experience or a "failure" experience. Easy and difficult forms of this measure with accompanying norm sheets were used for this purpose so that both an objective and subjective sense of ease or difficulty was felt. Following this manipulation, the second task -- The Concealed Figures Test -- was described as being either moderately or extremely difficult. The primary dependent measure was the number of correct responses on the Concealed Figures Test. 45 UBJ C S The study was carried out in Seoul, Korea and Lansing, Michigan, USA. The sample consisted of 177 (85 Korean, and 92 American) volunteer college students, 58 of whom are male, 119 female. In Korea, volunteer subjects were recruited from three universities located in Seoul, the largest city in that country. They were all undergraduate students who came from several classes. Six Korean students didn't finish all experimental treatment procedures, so they were excluded from final analyses involving the dependent variable (i.e., the Concealed Figures Test). In the U.S.A., subjects were recruited from several classes at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan. Most American subjects were Caucasian. After completing the intelligence questionnaire, subjects were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions: success and moderate difficulty, success and extreme difficulty, failure and moderate difficulty, or failure and extreme difficulty. Subjects in each group were administered the same performance feedback (i.e., failure or success), and the same future task characterization (i.e., moderate or extreme difficulty). The subjects were divided as follows: 46 Table 2 Number of Korean and American Subjects across Treatment Groups American (92) Korean (79) Moderately 24 20 Success (83) Extremely 19 20 Moderately 26 20 Failure (88) Extremely 23 19 Note: Total number of subjects are in parentheses. 47 INS N S 1. ues 'o ' o ' e ce: Following literature review of research studies, this study is based on the layperson's view of intelligence in order to examine differences in motivational structures between Asians and Americans. Because it is regarded the layperson has a well-developed view of what intelligence is. As mentioned earlier, people in different cultures may vary in what they mean by the concept of "intelligence." Few cross-cultural studies have been done in this field. To assess the concept of intelligence in the two cultures, a new questionnaire was constructed. The back-translation method (Brislin, 1970, 1980) was used to minimize language differences between cultures. To examine what the layperson means by intelligence, an intelligence questionnaire which contains several items from conceptions of intelligence measure developed by Yussen and Kane (1985) was used. After reviewing current studies of intelligence (e.g., Sternberg et al., 1981: Dweck & Bempechat, 1983), several items (i.e., theories of intelligence by Dweck and Bempechat, 1983) were added to the final form of this questionnaire. Some items were modified after a pilot study. 48 To assess the degree to which subjects' own self-concepts of academic ability play a role in their performance, a single self-report item adapted from the Michigan State Self-Concept of Ability Scale (Brookover, LePere, Hamachek, Thomas, & Erickson, 1965) was added to the instrument. Thus, the questionnaire contained 12 items in all dealing with various aspects of intelligence (see W): a. the definition of intelligence (1) b. visible signs of intelligence (2, 6) c. self-assessment of intelligence (3, 9) d. the role of intellectual ability and effort in school (4. 7) e. the influence of nature and nurture on intelligence (11) f. theories of intelligence (5, 8, 10, 12) In this study, except for Questions 1 and 11, the questionnaire asked students to rate each item on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree(1) to Strongly Agree(7). For Questions 1 and 11, dichotomous ratings were used. Variables in this questionnaire are completely explained in "Statistical Analysis Variables" section. 49 2. The Perceptiveness Sgala: The Perceptiveness Scale was modified from the Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1962) as used by Snyder, Lassegard, and Ford (1986). The Standard Progressive Matrices is "a test of a person's capacity at the time of the test to apprehend meaningless figures presented for his observation, see the relations between them, conceive the nature of the figure completing each system of relations presented, and, by so doing, develop a systematic method" (Standard Progressive Matrices Manual, p. 2). Twenty items (8 easy, 4 moderate, 8 difficult) were selected to form the Perceptiveness Scale. The scale consisted of two forms: Form A and Form B. Each with its own "norm" sheet. Each form had 12 items (see Appaagi;_ Q). Form B (success format) had 8 easy and 4 moderately difficult items and Form A (failure format) 8 difficult and 4 moderately difficult items. The normative data that accompanied each form was false, leading to give each subject a sense of either having succeeded on the task (Form B) or having failed (Form A). Possible scores ranged from 0 to 12. 3- W: The attribution questionnaire was modified from Frankel and Snyder's study (1978). Some questions relating to the 50 affects of success and failure were added from the questionnaire by Covington and Omelich (1985). The attribution questionnaire contained 15 different causal attributions which were presented following one's performance on a task. The attributions were as follows: performance, ability, effort, task difficulty, luck, importance (value), controllability, interesting, indicative, shame, surprise, guilty, satisfaction, pride, and choice of next task difficulty (see Appangix_E). Variables in this questionnaire are explained more completely in "Statistical Analysis Variables" section. 4. NW: The "Concealed Figures" Test is designed to measure students' ability to see a given configuration which is embedded in a larger, more complex figure. The test booklet consists of one page of directions with two practice exercises, and seven pages of test items. The actual test contains 49 items. Each item consists of a figure given on the left column followed by a row of four more complex drawings, some of which contain the given figure in its original size and orientation. The subject decides whether or not the stimulus figure is contained in the four more complex drawings. The subject marks his decision by placing a check mark under the drawing if it 51 contains the stimulus figure and a zero under the drawing if it does not contain the stimulus figure. Total scores equals the number of correct answers minus the number of wrong answers. The number of uncompleted or omitted answers does not enter into the scoring of this test. Possible scores ranged from 0 to 196. According to the manual of this test, the corrected split-half reliability is .94 (see Appepgix F). 232922933 Each subject was required to take two tests (Perceptiveness Scale and The Concealed Figure Test), and was expected to answer two questionnaires (Intelligence Questionnaire and Attribution Questionnaire). During the experimental session, prerecorded instructions were played on a cassette tape recorder to ensure consistent administration across testing sessions (see Appangix_§). After being administered an intelligence questionnaire, subjects were randomly assigned to two groups, and each group was presented with one of two versions of the Perceptiveness Scale (Form A and Form B). Form A was considerably easier than Form B. The order of difficulty of the set of matrices was mixed in order to ensure that the task was not overly simple or difficult for the groups. Subjects were told that the task, while not an 52 intelligence scale, did measure "the analytic processes involved in higher order thinking." Following the direction from taped instruction, subjects solved a sample problem in the Perceptiveness Scale, and then provided a correct answer as a practice. Subjects were given 10 minutes to respond to a series of matrices. After completion of the Scale, subjects scored their own answer sheet. After collecting the Perceptiveness Scale booklet and answer sheets, normative information (i.e., norm sheet) was provided that showed how many points an average person would get for each assigned group (success or failure). This procedure led subjects who received the different forms to believe that they either succeeded or failed on the task. In order to increase the salience of this performance feedback to both groups, they were also shown a table of scores and percentile rankings for different adult age groups. Then, the second questionnaire was distributed. This included measures of attributions and feelings about their performance on the Perceptive Scale. Using the 7-point Likert scale, all subjects rated the extent to which they strongly disagreed (1) or strongly agreed (7). Following this, the Concealed Figures Test was passed out. Before taking the test, the task was described as 53 "extremely difficult" for half of the subjects, and "moderately difficult" for the other half in each of the two previous conditions (i.e., success vs. failure). The number of correct responses on this measure was considered as the dependent variable. The instructions and practice exercises took approximately three minutes. The actual test was timed for ten minutes. (W) After the subjects completed all the experimental tasks, they were informed that none of the norm scores they received was correct, and that the tasks and norms were manipulated by the experimenter on purpose. Subjects were also informed that there were no norms against which to compare the scores that they had obtained. The purpose of the experiment was explained to the subjects so that they could understand why it was necessary for experimenter to mislead all of the subjects about their performance. All subjects were thanked for their participation, and allowed to ask any further questions. 54 H PO SES The following specific hypotheses guided the statistical analyses of the data in this study: 1. It was hypothesized that American subjects would show a stronger "egotism" approach. Thus, describing a future task as extremely difficult was expected to enhance the performance of American subjects who experienced failure on a prior task. It was hypothesized that the performance of Korean students would not be affected by task difficulty after the failure experience. 2. It was hypothesized that Koreans would evidence more of an incremental view of intelligence than Americans, and would emphasize the influence of nurture (experience) on intelligence. In contrast, Americans would evidence more of a fixed or an entity view of intelligence than Koreans, and would emphasize the influence of nature on intelligence. 3. It was hypothesized that Korean students would tend to choose effort as the most important factor in school success whereas American students would tend to choose intellectual ability. 55 4. It was hypothesized that American (ability-oriented) and Korean (effort-oriented) students would endorse different causal attributions following success or failure. That is, American students would be more inclined to attribute success to ability and failure to lack of effort or external factors. In contrast, Korean students would be more inclined to attribute success or failure to presence or absence of sufficient effort. 5. It was hypothesized that Americans and Koreans would show different emotional responses following success and failure experiences. That is, Americans, as opposed to Koreans, would be more inclined to show self-reward affects (satisfaction and pride) following success, and self-punishment affects (guilt and shame) following failure. 56 V N ST L ANA S A variety of statistical techniques, including chi-square, correlation, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to test the five hypotheses described earlier. The primary dependent measure used in this study was the number of correct responses on the Concealed Figure Test. Three factors were formed as independent variables. For the main hypothesis, data results were analyzed using a 2 (American/Korean) x 2 (success/failure) x 2 (moderate difficulty/extreme difficulty) analysis of variance. -The first factor was cultural background (i.e., American/ Korean), and the second was the success/failure manipulation. The final factor was the perceived task difficulty (extreme/moderate) manipulation. 1. W: To assess differences in perceptions of intelligence between the two cultures, the variables explained in the next section were analyzed. Except for Questions 1 and 11, ratings were made on a 7-point Likert type scale from strongly disagree(1) to strongly agree(7). For Questions 1 and 11, dichotomous ratings were used (i.e., yes or agree = 1, no or disagree = 0). 57 a) WWW (Question 1): To assess which culture is more inclined toward a certain characteristic of intelligence, seven collapsed variables were used: "school," "personal," "special," "social," "cognitive," "achievement-related," and "social- and personal-related." Then, two-way (culture and gender) analyses of variance were used to assess cultural and gender differences in seven collapsed variables. Each item was coded as a dichotomous variable (i.e., yes or agree 2 1, no or disagree 8 0). Seven combined variables were made as follows: 1) Five items were combined as a school-related variable: actual academic achievement. They were verbal ability, school achievement, writing ability, math ability, and reading ability: 2) three items were combined as a special variable: musical ability, creativity, and artistic talent: 3) five items were combined as a personal variable: personal adjustment, personality, good manners, value, and moral behavior: 4) three items were combined as a social variable: interpersonal skills, ability to share knowledge, and cooperation: 5) nine items were combined as a cognitive variable, which was primarily related to general cognitive or metacognitive 58 characteristics): thought, scientific thinking, knowledge, memory, deductive and inductive reasoning, problem-solving ability, learning speed, mental imagery, and motivation: 6) the school variable and cognitive variable were combined as a "schcog" variable: 7) the personal and social variable were combined as a "socper" variable. b) Sign: visible signs of intelligence (Question 2, 6): Two items were combined as the so-called "sign" variable (Question 2 and 6 in the Intelligence Questionnaire), which were modified from a conceptions of intelligence measure developed by Yussen and Kane (1983, 1985). This variable was concerned with "whether it is possible to spot intelligence in people from overt things they do" (Yussen and Kane, 1983, p.112). Ratings were made on a 7-point Likert type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). c) Saif-assessment of iateiliganca (Question 3, 9): The "self" variable was composed of two items: Question 3 and 9 in the Intelligence Questionnaire. This variable can be used to assess people's self-perceptions of intellectual ability. The first item (Question 3), which was modified from Yussen and Kane (1983), was related to 59 glgpal self-perception of intellectual ability. Second item (Question 9), which came from Michigan State Self-Concept of Ability Scale by Brookover et al. (1965), was related to agagamig self-perception of intellectual ability. Ratings were made on a 7—point Likert type scale ranging from least intelligence/much below average (1) to most intelligent/much above average (7). d) Ina :ola 9f lagellaggaal ability and affgrt in aghool (Question 4, 7 in the Intelligence Questionnaire): To assess what college students think is the most important factor explaining success in school, two items were developed by the experimenter. One item was related to intellectual ability, and the other item to effort. Ratings were made on a 7-point Likert type scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). e) Ina influeage of aatuza vs. gargaga on ingalligegga (Question 11): To assess the influence of nature vs. nurture on intelligence, one item modified from Yussen and Kane (1983) was used. This item was concerned with "the origin of intelligence and the relative contribution of inheritance and various kinds of experiences to it" (p. 112). Subjects were forced to choose either nature (i.e., what we are born with) or nurture (i.e., experiences we have had). 60 f) Thagria§_gf_in§alliganga (Question 5, 8, 10 and 12 in the Intelligence Questionnaire): Four items were combined as a "Theory" variable (7-point scale). These items were modified from Yussen and Kane (1985). To make the "View" (Views of intelligence) variable, the median score of "Theory" variable was used. That is, the above median score of "Theory" variable was called "Incremental View," and the below average median score, "Entity View." If scores were at the median, then it was used as above median score (i.e., incremental view). The incremental view of intelligence refers to the belief that intelligence is "an ever-growing repertoire of skills and knowledge, one that is increased through one's own instrumental behavior" (Dweck & Bempechat, 1983, p. 244). The entity view of intelligence refers to the belief that intelligence is "a specific, fixed amount of ability, and that this ability is displayed through performance" (Dweck & Bempechat, 1983, p. 243). The psychometric reliability for this scale on the questionnaire is moderately high, with a Cronbach's alpha of .68 for standardized scores and .67 for nonstandardized scores . 61 2- Aftribufienal_Questiennaire= To assess different causal attributions/affects of success and failure between the two cultures, a 15-item attribution questionnaire was employed in this study. Ratings were made on a 7-point Likert type scale from strongly disagree or the least (1) to strongly agree or the most (7). Internal consistency obtained for this scale on the questionnaire is high, with Cronbach's alpha for standardized scores being .73. 6) E2ur_IY2isal_Affribufienal_Ifem§= ability. effort. task difficulty, and luck (Questions 2, 3, 4, 5 in the Attributional Questionnaire): The causes perceived as most responsible for success and failure are ability (level of ability), effort (the amount of effort), task difficulty (the difficulty of the task), and luck (the magnitude and the direction of experienced luck) in achievement-related situations (Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, Rest, & Rosenbaum, 1971). To explore cultural differences in attributional dimensions, two other variables were created by the experimenter. They are "internal" and "external." According to Weiner (1979, 1984), the causes for success and failure were believed to be personal or internal (e.g., ability or effort), or environmental or external (e.g., 62 luck or task difficulty). Thus, the internal variable consisted of ability and effort items, and the external variable consisted of task difficulty and luck items. b) MM. shame. guilty. pride. satisfaction. and surprise (Questions 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 in the Attributional Questionnaire): There were broadly positive or negative reactions to success versus failure (Weiner, 1979, 1982: Weiner, Russell, & Lerman, 1978). In this study, five items were used to assess cultural differences in emotional reactions (affects) after success versus failure feedback: Two items (satisfaction and pride) related to success, and two items (guilty and shame) related to failure, and one item (surprise) related to both success and failure. Two new variables were created. Two items related to success were called the "reward" variable because these affects actually came as self-reward emotional reactions. Two items related to failure were called the "punish" variable because these affects were concerned with self-punishment feeling. c) O§heg Ataribugign§12eeliag : performance, perceived control, indicator of intelligence, interest, value (importance) of task, and choice of task difficulty 63 (Questions 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15 in the Attributional Questionnaire): Six other items were asked to rate from (1) least or not at all to (7) most or strongly agree. Each item was separately analyzed in terms of culture (American/Korean), Treatment 1 (success/failure), and gender (male/female). 64 BE§ULTS The purpose of this study was to explore cross-cultural differences in motivational structures. The main hypothesis can be stated as follows: Given cultural differences in the emphasis placed on effort versus ability as a salient factor in performance, it was thought that Korean students would evidence more of a "mastery orientation" to intellectual tasks, whereas Americans would evidence more of an "ego orientation." A series of five specific hypotheses were advanced relating to this overall hypothesis. Various statistical analyses (correlations and analysis of variance) were employed to determine if there was support for these hypotheses. W1: It was hypothesized that American subjects would show a stronger "egotism" approach. Thus, describing a future task as extremely difficult was expected to enhance the performance of American subjects who experienced failure on a prior task. It was hypothesized that the performance of Korean students would not be affected by task difficulty after the failure experience. 65 This hypothesis was supported by the results of this investigation. The main dependent variable (Total) was the number of correct responses on the Concealed Figure test. Table 3 shows a summary of performance scores (Total) of American and Korean subjects across treatment groups. Table 3 Means of American and Korean Subjects across Treatment Groups American (92) Korean (79) Moderately 69.21 (50) 77.38 (40) Extremely 79.21 (42) 69.46 (39) Note: the number of subjects is shown in parentheses. To examine significant mean differences between the two cultures, the main hypothesis was tested using a 2 x 2 x 2 analysis of variance. The result of that analysis is shown in Table 4. As this table shows, a significant Culture x Treatment 2 (i.e., moderate vs. extreme difficulty manipulation) interaction was obtained (E = 5.95, p < .016). The nature of this interaction is shown in Figure 1. 66 Table 4 Results of Three-way Analysis of Variance between Culture (American/Korean), Treatment 1 (success/failure manipulation), and Treatment 2 (moderate/extreme difficulty manipulation) Source of Q: Mean Square E p < Variation Statistic Culture 1, 163 103.71 .178 .674 Treatl 1, 163 10.48 .018 .894 Treat2 1, 163 22.13 .038 .846 Culture x Treatl 1, 163 1013.46 1.737 .189 Culture x Treat2 1, 163 3471.74 5.952 * .016 Treatl x Treat2 1, 163 1448.05 2.482 .117 Culture x T1 x T2 1, 163 943.98 1.618 .205 *p<.05 Consistent with a motivational explanation of academic performance differences between Asian and American students, the performance of Korean and American college students differed significantly as a function of the perceived difficulty of the task they were asked to perform. Americans performed better than their Korean counterparts when the task they were given was described as extremely difficult but performed less well than the Koreans when it was described as moderately difficult. The fact that Americans did better in the extremely difficult situation was an important finding. The so-called 67 Figure 1 Performance for Culture by Treatment 2 100 9° 7 8 N21 3 a 30— Tug <2 3 8 ‘6 ' 69 46 E 3 60 _ 50 l l Moderately Extremely Perceived Task Difficulty . (3 Korean ... Amencan "egotism" explanation of this sort of result, obtained in previous research studies (e.g., Frankel & Snyder, 1978: Snyder, Smoller, Strenta, & Frankel, 1981), may account for the significant Culture x Treatment 2 interaction obtained in the present investigation. According to the egotism interpretation, individuals may be more likely to try hard--and thus perform better--when a new task is described as extremely 68 difficult. Because failure on such a task can easily be attributed to its difficulty level, the fear that failure may adversely reflect on one's ability is lessened, if not eliminated. Individuals in such a situation are more likely to work up to their potential. This interpretation, of course, assumes that ability is viewed as a relatively fixed capacity that serves to limit the effect of effort on performance (Nicholls, 1984). It thus makes sense to reduce effort as a way of protecting self-esteem in the context of a moderately difficult as opposed to an extremely difficult undertaking. In other words, less effort is expended on tasks where failure implies low ability as is the case for the moderately difficult task. On the other hand, Koreans performed better than their American counterparts when the task they were given was described as moderately difficult but performed less well than the Americans when it was described as extremely difficult. This was not predicted. Why did Koreans perform differently in the moderate and extreme task difficulty conditions? Perhaps.this result can be explained in terms of two values that receive strong emphasis in the Korean culture: The importance of hard work, and the value placed on adherence to group norms and standards. Thus, effort- oriented societies such as the Korean emphasize "maximizing the chances of attributing 69 high effort to oneself and minimizing the chances of attributing low effort to oneself" (Maehr & Nicholls, 1980, p. 241). Furthermore, because Korea is also a group-oriented society, values such as this are regarded as standards that assume a morallike quality. Individuals in a culture like the Korean have to try especially hard in order to avoid feelings of quilt arising from a failure to adhere to important group norms. In a group-oriented society, an individual's success or failure contributes to a group's (i.e., a family's) success or failure. Failure, then results in feelings of great shame, especially if one has not tried hard. According to this view, even if a failure occurs, guilt is lessened when the individual has expended maximum effort, and this is preferable to shame. However, unlike the moderately difficult task condition, there is no requirement of maximum effort in the extremely difficult task condition. Even if a person gets low scores in this condition, performance is less likely to be blamed on lack of effort. Thus, Koreans perform less well when the task is described as extremely difficult. 70 W: It was hypothesized that Koreans would evidence more of an incremental view of intelligence than Americans, and would emphasize the influence of nurture (experience) on intelligence. In contrast, Americans would evidence more of a fixed or an entity view of intelligence than Koreans, and would emphasize the influence of nature on intelligence. Hypothesis 2 was strongly supported by the results of this investigation. Chi-square, correlational, and analysis of variance techniques were employed to test this hypothesis. As noted in Chapter III, there were four items (Question 5, 8, 10 and 12) calling for students to rate their views of intelligence. One item (Question 11) was concerned with the nature-nurture issue. A summary of students' responses to these items is provided in Table 5. The four items presented in this table were combined additively to form the composite theory variable. (These items were modified from a questionnaire developed by Yussen and Kane (1985).) The median score on the composite variable was used to generate the dichotomous "views of intelligence" variable. That is, scores above the median on the composite variable were thought to reflect an incremental view and those below the median were thought to reflect an entity view of 71 Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations for Views of Intelligence Items Variable Overall Korean Only American Only Mean 8.0. Mean 8.0. Mean S.D. Ques.5 4.52 1.73 5.16 1.68 3.95 1.57 Ques.8 5.41 1.43 6.16 .99 4.73 1.44 Ques.10 4.80 1.40 5.07 1.28 4.55 1.46 Ques.12 5.25 1.52 5.49 1.38 5.03 1.63 Theory 5.00 1.08 5.48 .80 4.57 1.13 Table 6 Students' ratings Summary of One-way of Analysis of Variance of Source of Q3 3 9 Variation Statistic Ques.5 1, 170 23.31 *** .001 Ques.8 1, 171 56.44 *** .001 Ques.10 1, 171 5.86 .017 Ques.12 1, 171 3.69 .057 Theory 1, 172 47.47 *** .001 Note: * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < 72 intelligence. A score that fell exactly on the median was considered to lie above the median score (i.e., to reflect an incremental view). As shown in Table 6, results of the ANOVA indicated that there was a significant mean difference between Koreans and Americans (3 = 47.47, p < .001). As indicated, students' average ratings across the four relevant items constitute the dependent variable in this analysis. The independent variable was culture. Correlational analysis also showed a significant relationship between culture and view (3 = .33, p < .001). This result confirmed hypothesis 2: Koreans were more inclined toward an incremental view of intelligence whereas Americans embraced more the entity view of intelligence. Both Table 7 and Figure 2 show how views of intelligence were divided across culture. As shown in Table 7 and Figure 2, Koreans were much more likely to adopt the incremental view of intelligence. Specifically, 70 % of the Koreans were inclined toward this view while only 30 % of the Koreans agreed with it. That is, a majority of Koreans revealed that they believe that intelligence can be increased with the right combination of effort and experience. In contrast, 63 % of Americans were inclined toward the entity view of intelligence: only slightly more than a third (37 %) agreed with the 73 incremental view of intelligence. A chi-square test was performed to examine these cultural differences. The results show that Korean students were significantly more incremental (chi-square = 18.20, p < .001) than their American counterparts. Table 7 Distributions of Views of Intelligence by Culture Entity Incremental View View Korean 25 58 (3o %) (7o 9.) American 58 34 (63 e) (37 9.) Note: chi square = 18.20, p < .001 Fl 9 u re 2 Views of Intelligence by Culture 100 70% Percent (74) u. o l 30% \.\ \ \\\\\\\Q \ \\\\\\\\\\ /fl //. Korean American Culture [22} EntityView lncrementalView Table 8 shows result of a second chi-square test performed to examine the nature-nurture issue (i.e., Question 11): this test indicated that there was a significant difference between cultures regarding this issue (chi square = 8.69, p < .003), and these differences parallel those described above. It is not surprising that ratings on the nature-nurture item were significantly correlated with ratings on the four theory of intelligence 75 Table 8 Views of Nature-Nurture Influences by Culture Nature Nurture Korean 14 68 (17 %) (83 %) American 35 56 (39 %) (61 %) Note: chi square a 8.69, p < .003 items (3 a .51, p < .001). As hypothesized, these results indicated that there was a greater tendency for Americans than for Koreans to identify intelligence as "something we are born with" (i.e., a relatively fixed trait). On the other hand, majority of Koreans generally emphasized experience as a constituting the most vital influence in intelligence. 76 fiypgthasis 3: It was hypothesized that Korean students would tend to choose effort as the most important factor in school success whereas American students would tend to choose intellectual ability. This hypothesis was partly supported by the results of this investigation. Table 9 shows means and standard deviations for the ability and effort variables. Figure 3 also shows how ability and effort explanations for school success were distributed across cultures. Overall, effort was seen as a more important factor than ability accounting for school success: this was especially true for the Koreans. Table 9 Means and Standard Deviations for ability and effort items Overall Korean American Variable Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Ability 3.79 1.60 3.96 1.68 3.63 1.57 Item Effort 5.03 1.64 5.66 1.40 4.46 1.63 Item .7 \I Figure 3 Factors Explaining School Succes <\\ 4.46 7-Point Scale 7//////////// WW2 Korean American Factors Ability Effort Two separate one-way (culture) ANOVA tests were employed to examine the hypothesis stated above. These results are shown in Table 10. The first ANOVA dealt with the ability factor as an explanation of school success. The results of this ANOVA indicated that there was no significant difference between Korean and American students in their ratings of ability as a factor in school success (E = 1.54, p < .216). Even though Koreans and Americans 78 Table 10 Summary of One-way of Analysis of Variance of Factors as Explanation of School Success Source of Q: E 2 Variation Statistic Ability 1, 170 1.54 .216 Effort 1, 171 24.97 *** .001 *** p <.001 have different conceptions of ability (i.e., incremental versus entity views), there is no cultural difference in the importance they assign to this factor as an explanation for school success. (This contention is further supported by the zero order correlation (; = .05) which was obtained when the relationship between this variable and views of intelligence was examined.) Results of the second ANOVA test differed from the first in indicating that there was a significant mean difference between Korean and American students in the importance they assigned effort as a factor in school success (E = 24.97, p < .001). Thus, as Table 10 shows, Korean students agreed more strongly than Americans that 79 effort is the most important factor in accounting for academic success in school. The results of this investigation confirm previous studies' suggestion (e.g., Stevenson et al., 1985: Hess et al., 1987) that Asians are more inclined toward effort as the key factor in explaining school success. 80 mm: It was hypothesized that American (ability-oriented) and Korean (effort-oriented) students would endorse different causal attributions following success or failure. That is, American students would be more inclined to attribute success to ability and failure to lack of effort or external factors. In contrast, Korean students would be more inclined to attribute success or failure to presence or absence of sufficient effort. Hypothesis 4 was supported by results of this investigation. Analysis of variance was employed to examine this hypothesis. It should be pointed out that hypothesis 4 is different from hypothesis 3 in that the latter is concerned with the general factors explaining school success, whereas hypothesis 4 is concerned with the specific causal attributions employed by subjects following their own success or failure. The causes perceived as most responsible for success and failure according to previous research are ability (level of ability), effort (the amount of effort), task difficulty (the difficulty of the task), and luck (the magnitude and direction of experienced luck) in achievement-related situations (Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, Rest, & Rosenbaum, 1971). These four attributions were assessed in this investigation. To explore cultural differences in attributional 81 Table 11 Mean Ratings for typical causal attributions Variable Success Failure Name Korean American Korean American Ability 4.23 5.37 3.92 2.94 Effort 4.80 5.33 4.56 4.50 Task Diff. 4.15 4.19 4.92 5.57 Luck 3.85 4.40 4.16 3.82 Internal 4.51 5.33 4.36 3.77 External 4.00 4.40 4.54 4.75 To explore cultural differences in attributional dimensions, two other variables were created in this study: "internal" and "external." The internal variable consisted of ability and effort items, while the external variable consisted of task difficulty and luck items. Table 11 shows a summary of means and standard deviations by culture by Treatment 1 (success/failure manipulation) for the four attribution variables and the two combined variables. Two-way ANOVA tests were performed to examine causal attributions between the two cultures. In the ANOVA test, 82 culture and Treatl (success/failure manipulation) were employed as the independent variables. Preliminary analyses showed no significant sex differences: therefore, data were collapsed across sex for the analyses. The summary results of the ANOVA test are shown in Table 12. The results of two-way ANOVA test performed to examine ability attributions indicated that the main effect for culture was n9; significant (E = .09, p < .764). That is, there was no significant mean difference in the use of this attribution between cultures. As expected, however, the main effect for Treatment 1 was significant (E = 52.30, p < .001), with success being attributed more to ability than failure regardless of culture. This main effect, however, must be interpreted in light of the significant culture by Treatment 1 interaction which was obtained (E = 31.28, p < .001). As shown in Figure 4, American students more strongly attributed success to ability than did Koreans, and failure to factors other than ability. Korean students made much less attributional distinction between success and failure. Results of the two-way ANOVA test for the effort attribution indicated that the main effect for culture once again was gag significant (E = .56, p < .455). However, the main effect for Treatment 1 was significant (E = 6.43, p < .012), with success attributed to effort more than 83 Table 12 Results of Two-Way Analysis of Variance for Culture and Treatment 1 Source of QE E Variation Statistic E1010! 5!! I! !0 Treatl 1, 158 52.30 *** .001 Culture x T1 1, 158 31.28 *** .001 Treatl 1, 158 6.43 * .012 I 1 E'EE' 1! El! .1 !° Culture 1, 158 4.40 * .038 Treatl 1, 158 39.15 *** .001 Culture x T1 1, 158 3.77 .054 Luck_Attributien Culture x T1 1, 158 12.52 *** .001 I t J E!! .1 !' Treatl 1, 158 37.99 *** .001 Culture x T1 1, 158 17.14 *** .001 a t ' u Treatl 1, 158 17.41 *** .001 * 9 < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 84 Flgu re 4. . Mean Rating r Ability Attributions 6 T 5.37 5 I 4.23 35' 4 _ 3.92 E 9‘3 a 2.94 3 .. 2 a 1 _ O l fl Success Failure 0 KoremmF’erformance Feidbacl’kmerican failure. Unlike for the ability analysis, a significant culture by Treatment 1 interaction effect was g9; obtained. An internal attribution variable was created by combining ability and effort attributions additively. The results of the two-way ANOVA test for internal attributions revealed that the main effect for culture was 9g; significant but Treatment 1 was significant (E = 37.99, 85 Figure 5 Mean Ratings for Internal Attributions 5.33 5 —( 4N 4.36 E.- —‘:'J 4 - \\3°Z7 7-Polnl Scale I. l l l Success Failure Performance Feedback 0 Korean 4, Ame man 9 <.001), with success attributed to an internal factor more than failure. Most importantly, an interaction effect for culture and Treatment 1 was also found (E = 17.14, g < .001). Figure 5 shows the significant interaction effect between culture and Treatment 1. American students were more inclined to use internal factors in the success condition, but not in the failure condition. Koreans showed minimal differences between the two situations. 86 Results of the two-way ANOVA test performed to examine task difficulty attributions indicated that the main effect for culture was significant (E = 4.40, p < .038). Americans tend to feel that the Perceptiveness Scale was more difficult than Korean students. As expected, the main effect for Treatment 1 was also significant (E = 39.15, p < .001), with failure attributed more to task factors than success. No significant interaction effect was found. The result of the two-way ANOVA test for luck attribution indicated that main effects for culture and Treatment 1 were not significant. However, an interesting interaction effect for culture by Treatment 1 was obtained (E - 12.52, p < .001). Koreans attributed failure primary to lack of luck whereas Americans attributed success to presence of luck. This seems to be a contradictory finding given results reported on above. However, even if this interaction looks reflecting cultural difference, mean ratings for the luck variable are relatively lower (4.40) in the American/success situation compared with mean ratings for ability (5.37), or effort (5.33). An external attribution variable was created by combining task difficulty and luck attribution variables additively. The results of the two-way ANOVA test for this variable revealed that Treatment 1 was the only significant effect (E = 17.41, p < .001), with failure attributed to 87 external factors more than success. The interaction effect was 39; significant. In summary, Korean students attributed success more to effort and failure to lack of effort or to task difficulty. As predicted, Korean students' main attribution was presence or absence of effort. In contrast, American students attributed success primarily to both ability and effort and failure to task difficulty. Americans evidenced more of an egotism (i.e., self-serving bias)--attributing success to internal factors, but failure to external factors such as task difficulty that presumably reflect less negatively on sense of self. Ability, thus, was rated highest as an explanation for success by Americans but lowest as an explanation for failure. The pattern for Koreans was much less extreme. 88 Eypotnasis 5: It was hypothesized that Americans and Koreans would show different emotional responses following success and failure experiences. That is, Americans, as opposed to Koreans, would be more inclined to show self-reward affects (satisfaction and pride) following success, and self-punishment affects (guilt and shame) following failure. Hypothesis 5 was supported by results of this investigation. Separate analyses of variance were employed to examine this hypothesis. To examine cultural differences in emotional reactions (affects) following success versus failure, five effects were identified: Two items (satisfaction and pride) were related to success and two items (guilt and shame) to failure: one item (surprise) relates both to success and failure. Thus, in success situations, feelings of satisfaction, pride, and so on, tend to be reported. Given failure, there are several outcome-dependent affects that people report, such as guilt, shame, and so on. These affects are not the only outcome-dependent affects following success or failure, but they appear to be the most salient and general affects. As described earlier, two new variables were created. The two items related to success were termed a "reward" variable because these 89 affects actually function as a self-rewarding emotional reaction. The two items related to failure were termed a "punishment" variable because these affects are concerned with self-punishing kinds of feelings. Table 13 shows a summary of mean ratings by culture and by Treatment 1 for the five distinct and two composite variables. Two-way ANOVA and three-way ANOVA tests were performed to examine differences in affect between cultures following success and failure experiences. In the ANOVA test, Culture, Treatment 1, and sex were employed as the Table 13 Mean Ratings for Typical Causal Affects Variable Success Failure Name Korean American Korean American Shame 3.28 1.59 3.15 3.28 Guilt 2.30 1.31 2.08 1.63 Surprise 3.73 3.10 4.33 4.57 Satisfaction 3.60 5.51 3.54 2.08 Pride 3.55 5.38 3.31 2.06 Reward 3.58 5.52 3.42 2.07 Punish 2.79 1.45 2.62 2.29 90 independent variables. Preliminary analyses showed pg significant sex differences in self-reward related variables: therefore, data were collapsed across sex for those analyses. The results of the ANOVA test are shown in Table 14. The result of the two-way ANOVA test for self-reward affects indicated that the main effect for Treatment 1 was not significant. However, the main effect for Culture was significant (E = 84.01, p < .001). The interaction effect for Culture by Treatment 1 was also significant (E = 50.81, p < .001). This interaction is depicted in Figure 6. Americans shows greater pleasant feelings (pride and satisfaction) after success feedback, whereas greater negative feelings (shame and guilt) following failure feedback. In ability-oriented cultures like America, people are so much concerned with demonstrating high ability. If they can demonstrate high ability, they feel greater positive affects like pride or satisfaction. If they fail to demonstrate sufficient ability, they feel greater shame or humiliation. On the other hand, Korean students felt no significant self-reward feeling following success or failure feedbacks. One possible explanation stands for this result. In effort-oriented cultures like Korea, in fact, people might be less interested in outcomes of performance (i.e., success or failure). People in this cultures 91 emphasize "maximizing the chances of attributing high effort to oneself" (Maehr & Nicholls, 1980, p.241). Thus, greater positive feelings might come from maximizing high effort rather than demonstrating high ability or outcomes of performance itself. Figure 6 Mean Ratings for Self-reward Affect 5.52 4 -—l 3'58 \ 3.42 7‘Pc-inl Sale I. r 1 Success Failure , Performance Feedback _ Cl lxorcan + .-\mencan 92 The results of the three-way ANOVA test performed to examine self-punishment ("punish") affects indicated that the main effects for both culture (E = 18.70, p < .001) and Treatment 1 (E = 4.01, p <.047) were significant. The interaction between culture and Treatment 1 was also significant (E = 5.58, p < .019). This is an interesting finding. In terms of the negative affects, Koreans apparently felt no significant emotional differences in the success versus failure conditions. If anything they show almost as strong shame or guilt following success as they do failure. There might be two possible explanations for this anomalous result. First, there might be different response tendencies in the two cultures. Koreans tend not to rate this affect in either extreme way. Second, compared with the ability-oriented American culture, achievement-related affects might not be strong in an effort-oriented culture like Korea, regardless of whether individuals experience success or failure. The interaction between culture and sex was also significant (E a 10.43, p <.002). Thus, American males and Korean females feel more self-punishment affects. This result is consistent with previous research findings, in that American males tend to be ego- or ability-oriented, so they feel more shame or humiliation when they fail to demonstrate sufficient ability. 93 Table 14 Results of Two-way and Three-way Analysis of Variance for Typical Causal Affects Source of DE E p Variation Bagazg (Self-Reward) (Two-Way ANOVA): Culture 1, 158 84.01 *** .001 Culture x T1 1, 158 50.81 *** .001 Baniah (Self-Punishment) (Three-Way ANOVA): Culture 1, 158 18.70 *** .001 Treatl l, 158 4.01 * .047 Culture x T1 1, 158 5.58 * .019 Culture x Sex 1, 158 10.43 ** .002 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 In summary, Koreans' emotional responses (affects) following performance feedback (i.e., success versus failure) were significantly different from those of Americans, especially in terms of self-punishment affects. Sex by Treatl interaction was also found for self-punishment affects (shame and guilt). A culture by Treatl interaction was found in shame, satisfaction, and pride. In contrast, Americans produced more self-reward feelings following success, and less self-punishment feelings following failure. 94 F NG To explore cross-cultural differences in motivational structures between American and Korean college students, five hypotheses were advanced. Overall, results of this study supported these hypotheses. Results from the experimental and questionnaire aspects of the study can be summarized as follows: First, a significant culture by treatment group interaction effect was obtained on the problem-solving task. Consistent with the hypothesis, the performance of Korean and American college students differed significantly as a function of the perceived difficulty of the task they were asked to perform. Koreans performed better than their American counterparts when the task undertaken was described as moderately difficult, but performed less well than the Americans when it was described as extremely difficult. Americans, on the other hand, performed better in the extremely difficult situation. The so-called "egotism" explanation of this sort of result, reported in previous studies (e.g., Frankel & Snyder, 1978: Snyder et al., 1981), may account for the significant culture by treatment group interaction obtained in the present study. According to this explanation, subjects--if they believe performance reflects on ability--will not try as hard following failure unless their performance does n9; pose a 95 further threat to self-esteem: there is less threat in the extremely difficult situation. Second, students in the two cultures have significantly different views of intelligence. As predicted, Americans were more inclined toward an entity view of intelligence, whereas Koreans favored an incremental view of intelligence. The results of the ANOVA test performed to examine views of intelligence between cultures indicated that there was a significant cultural difference in views of intelligence along with a strong relationship between culture and views of intelligence. Related to these results, the chi-square test performed to examine relative emphasis on nature versus nurture as factors accounting for intelligence indicated that there was a significant difference between the two cultures. Both findings confirmed that there was a greater tendency for Americans than for Koreans to identify intelligence as something individuals are born with (i.e., a fixed trait). Third, effort was considered to be a more important factor in explaining school success than ability, especially by Koreans. The results of two separate ANOVA tests indicated that there was n9 significant difference between Korean and American students' rating of the importance of ability as a factor school success, but there was a significant cultural difference in their ratings of 96 the effort. That is, Korean students more strongly agree with the statement that effort is the most important factor explaining school success. Fourth, there are significant cultural differences in causal attributions following success or failure. As predicted, Korean students' main attribution following success or failure was presence or absence of effort. In contrast, American students attributed success to ability and failure to task difficulty. As predicted, Americans clearly attributed success to an internal factor, but failure to an external factor. Finally, to explore cultural differences in emotional reactions (affects) following success or failure, two composite categories of affect were identified. Koreans' emotional responses (affects) after performance feedback (i.e., success or failure) were significantly different from Americans. Americans, for instance, produced more self-reward feelings following success, and less self-punishment feelings following failure. Results of both the experimental and questionnaire phases of the study would thus appear to support the "motivational structures" argument advanced to account for cultural differences in academic performance between Asian and American students. Table 15 shows summarized findings in this investigation. 97 Table 15 A Summary of Research Findings Korean American View of Intelligence Nature - Nurture The most important Incremental view (70 %) more nurture view (83 %) factor in school success effort Causal Attributions for Success Causal Attributions for Failure Emotional Reactions for Success Emotional Reactions for Failure effort effort task difficulty less self-reward more self-punishment Entity view (63 %) less nurture (61 %) ability + effort ability + effort task difficulty more self-reward less self-punishment 98 CHAPTER V. D SCUSS N CONC U ON IM TA ONS AN D O O A This Chapter consists of four sections. First, research findings will be discussed. In this discussion, the focus on cultural differences and their implications. Next, several limitations of this study will be discussed. Finally, recommendations for future research in the area of cross-cultural study on achievement orientation will be advanced. DISQUEEIQN_QE_EIHDIN§§ The purpose of this investigation was to explore cross-cultural differences between American and Korean college students in terms of their motivational structures. There were significant cultural differences among various aspects of views intelligence and causal attributions. Overall, Americans appear to possess more of an ability-oriented motivational structure, whereas Koreans seem to endorse more of an effort-oriented motivational structure. This raises the important issue of which motivational structure is most adaptive. This issue will be also discussed later. 99 Wages The results of this study strongly supported the presence of significant cultural differences between Americans and Koreans in terms of their motivational structures. As defined earlier, a motivational structure is "a set of beliefs, perceptions, or conceptions of causal factors related to academic achievement." Several cultural differences were found in various aspects of motivational structure, including views of intelligence, causal attributions and affect following success and failure, and academic orientations. As was demonstrated in the previous chapter, cultural differences were evident in views of intelligence, the nature-nurture issue, and the importance assigned to ability versus effort as an explanation for school success. That is, Koreans were more inclined toward the incremental view of intelligence, whereas Americans embraced more the entity view of intelligence. A majority of Korean college students (70%) expressed the belief that intelligence can be increased with the right combination of effort and experience: Korean students also favored the view that nurture plays a key role in the development of intelligence. Americans tended to prefer ability as an explanation of school success, whereas Koreans tend to choose effort as an explanation of school success. 100 Second, there were significant cultural differences in causal attributions and affects following success or failure. Korean students attributed success to effort, failure to task difficulty and lack of effort. In contrast, American students attributed success to ability, failure to task difficulty. As predicted, Americans attributed success to internal factors, and failure to external factors. Koreans' emotional responses (affects) 'after performance feedback (i.e., success or failure) were significantly different from Americans. Americans, for example, produced more self-reward feelings following success, and less self-punishment feelings following failure. Most importantly, American subjects performed better on the presumably less-threatening, "extremely difficult" problem-solving task: their Korean counterparts performed better on the supposedly more realistic, "moderately difficult“ problem-solving task. According to the egotism interpretation advanced by researchers such as Frankel and Snyder (1978), individuals are more likely to try hard and perform better when a new task is described as extremely difficult. This is especially true if those who have a fixed or entity view of ability. Because failure on an extremely difficult task can easily be attributed to its difficulty level, the fear that failure may adversely 101 reflect on one's ability is lessened, if not eliminated. Individuals in such a situation are more likely to work up to their potential. Korean subjects performed better than their American counterparts when the task they were given was described as moderately difficult but performed less well than the Americans when it was described as extremely difficult. Why did Koreans perform differently between the task difficulty conditions? In the moderately difficult condition, low levels of effort accompanied by low scores imply that subjects are lazy and did not try hard enough. Koreans thus feel compelled in this situation to work up to their potential. Then, even if failure does occur, quilt is lessened and this is preferable to shame. However, there is no requirement of maximum effort in the extremely difficult task condition. Since the task was described as extremely difficult, bad performance is less likely to be attributed to lack of effort. Thus, Koreans might perform less well when the task is described as extremely difficult. These cultural differences in the various aspects of motivational structure can presumably be explained in terms of individuals' socialization backgrounds. That is, Koreans' motivational structures might come from strong beliefs in the efficacy of effort based on the values of 102 Confucianism and Buddhism. In contrast, Americans' motivational structures might come from the Protestant tradition which emphasizes individualism and the work ethic. In order to understand Koreans' cultural beliefs in the achievement situation, it is important to examine the "Confucian doctrine." Related to achievement, two values are of central hearts in Confucianism: the high value placed on education and the honoring of family. Why do Koreans value education so highly? Why do Koreans feel strong pressure for good performance in school? According to the Confucian scholars, Confucianism stresses three views (Yu 8 Phillips, 1983): 1) The universe is characterized by order, regularity, and a harmonious integration of its parts: 2) It is possible for man to discern this order underlying things and events: 3) To devote oneself to what the "Great Learning" calls the systematic study of "things" (i.e., man, institutions, history, and the Classics), and in this way contribute to the accumulation of knowledge, is the high calling of the "gentleman," the occupation which will enable men to live in harmony with each other and the universe (p. 92). As shown above, the ideal person in Confucian doctrine is called the "gentleman (Gunja)." This gentleman is a product of nurture (i.e., proper instruction and hard work) rather than being born with such traits (i.e., nature). Parents assume the major role in educating their children. 103 Thus, from early ages on, Koreans feel strong pressure from their family for high performance and hard work. This is one of the reasons why Koreans value effort and education. Why do Korean students feel strong pressure from their family? Like other Asian cultures, Korea is a group- oriented (e.g., family-oriented) society, and the family is the most determining factor in the total pattern of social structures (Yu & Phillips, 1983). The individual tends to seek mutual dependence in this culture. That is, he is dependent upon others as much as others are dependent upon him, and he therefore fully understands his obligation to make repayment to them (Hsu, 1963). This may be a reflection of general Asians' socialization patterns which are roots in Confucian values. Success may reflect one's duty to family and the larger social structure, external to the individual. Whereas, in failures, there may be larger personal load which might reflect the high degree of responsibility and dependency upon the family. In contrast, America is an individually-oriented society, and the individual's basic orientation toward life and the environment is self-reliance (Hsu, 1963). According to the work ethic, it is believed that anyone can succeed with hard work. However, Americans have less pressure to perform well in school from their environment-- 104 especially home. In this culture, independence and self values, rather than dependence and group values, are considered quite desirable for all individuals. Because America is a more individualized country than Korea, there is a higher tendency to rely on the "self," and individuals are less under the control of family or socio-environmental factors. Thus, one would expect individuals from this kind of culture to be more internally oriented. This cultural belief may help to explain the egotism and internal attribution orientations evidenced by Americans following success outcomes in the present study. Impligagigas Which is the most adaptive motivational structure? Obviously, there are some advantages and disadvantages in each motivational structure. As stated earlier, America is an individually-oriented society. In this culture, ability, self values, autonomy, and independence are highly prized. These are very important in a modern democratic society. The results of this investigation indicate that Americans are inclined more toward the entity and nature view of intelligence, internal attributions for success and external attributions for failure, and an egotism orientation in the face of difficult tasks. 105 The main disadvantages of the American motivational structure is the tendency to give up in the face of adversity and discount the importance of effort. This tendency to give up following failure has been frequently shown in learned helplessness studies (Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980). To remedy this negative reaction, various strategies have been used such as attribution retraining (Dweck, 1975). It surfaces in a different form in the egotism literature cited above (Frankel & Snyder, 1978: Snyder et al., 1981). These are typical reactions to failure situations in an ability-oriented society. Korea is a group-oriented society. The family is the main source of support in this type of culture. In the Korean culture, effort, group values, self-control, and dependence are highly valued. These values, of course, come from traditional beliefs. The results of this investigation indicate that Koreans are inclined more toward the incremental and nurture view of intelligence, and presence of effort for success and lack of effort for failure. That is, the presence or absence of effort is a main attribution for both success and failure. It is an optimistic point of view because academic achievement can be improved by the presence of effort (i.e., incremental view) in the Korean motivational structure. 106 There are four disadvantages associated with the Korean motivational structure. These disadvantages are not independent of each other, but are interdependent. First, Korea is a group-oriented society and the individual has a strong obligation toward the family. On the positive side, this obligation puts strong pressure on Korean students to perform well in school. However, Korean students tend to show lack of independence in academic situations. That is, it is typical for parents to control their children's study. Korean students are dependent on teachers' or parents' control, rather than their own autonomy in academic situations. Second, beliefs regarding the efficacy of effort are very popular. People in Korea tend to think that more tests (i.e., more exams) lead to better academic achievement. Thus, rote memory, rather than creativity, is dominant in achievement situations. Teachers do teach their students "to memorize," rather than "to think" (Ensor, 1987). Koreans' beliefs regarding the efficacy of effort might also affect the individual who fails with high effort. Failure with high effort could strongly influence one's self-esteem (Covington, 1984). Strong pressure to perform well in school also leads to increases in students' stress. This might be one reason for relatively high rates of suicide in Asian cultures. 107 The reasons of suicide also are more likely related to school, or academic problems (e.g., failure of an important exam) (Rohlen, 1983) Finally, because education is highly valued, higher education is a valuable commodity in Korea. Like Japan, in Korea higher education places enormous pressure on high school students, largely because a majority of students try to enter the best university. They believe that "entering the best university" maximize their chances of a successful life in the future. Thus, high school students feel they should give up almost everything else in order to get a good score on the final test, which decides whether they will enter university or college (Ensor, 1987). No motivational structure is universally adaptive. It is important to integrate the strong points of each of these motivational structures. One optimistic implication for this investigation is that academic performance can be improved by modifying motivational structure. Table 16 shows a summary of different cultural beliefs. 108 Table 16 A Summary of Cultural Differences Korean American Effort-oriented culture high value on effort Buddhism, Confucianism Group (family) oriented Collectivism dependence group-value Ability-oriented culture high value on ability Christianity, Protestantism Individual oriented Individualism Independence self-value nil-g. _ 109 LIMETATIONS OF THE SIQD! AND 0 AT ON OR CH There are many potential problems involved in conducting cross-cultural research, including biased sampling procedures and failure to develop equivalent measurement. To make meaningful comparisons between the two cultures, it is important to make sure that comparisons are equivalent and precise. Since few comparative studies between the two cultures have been undertaken on the perceptions of intelligence and attributions following success versus failure, it was necessary to develop a new questionnaire for this study. Because of the constraints of time and money, several tasks and questionnaires already available were examined and revised following a pilot study to render the tasks more culturally appropriate. To achieve this goal, a back-translation technique described by Brislin (1970, 1980) was used. However, an accurately translated instrument alone is not a panacea for cross-cultural research. Hui and Triandis (1985), in a review of strategies in cross-cultural research, point out, "Differences in social desirability levels and motivation to respond on the respondents' part, and inconsistent test 110 administration procedures on the researchers' part, are some potential problems that can plague a study that will otherwise yield precise comparisons on standard instruments" (p.140). In order to examine motivational structures in Asians and Americans, American and Korean college students were involved in this study. Generally, the investigation of college students is less appropriate in cross-cultural studies, since college students represent highly selected groups. On the other hand, to examine motivational structures between the two cultures, the use of children as subjects is inappropriate because children's motivational structures are not fully differentiated until relatively late in development (Stipek, 1981: Nicholls, 1978, 1984: Dweck & Elliott, 1983). Nicholls (1984) defines the development of conceptions of ability as a process of differentiation. He suggests that until children are about 10 or 11 years old, they do not understand the compensatory relationship between effort and ability (i.e., given equal outcomes, less effort implies higher ability). Dweck and Elliott (1983) also suggest that until late grade school, few children understand important aspects of the concept of intelligence. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that at college age, the differentiation and development of motivational structures have been fully shaped by 111 socio-environmental influences - especially those in the home and school. Still, several other factors delimit the generalizability of this study. First of all, there may exist a certain sampling bias in this study. Seoul, Korea is a large metropolitan city while East Lansing, Michigan is, comparatively, much smaller. However, there is little evidence that the size of a city influences people's conceptions of intelligence and other motivational characteristics. Second, the larger the sample, the more likely it is that research will obtain reliable results. In this study, the size of subject groups was rather small, i.e., only eighty to ninety subjects from each country. Though it was hoped to have larger subject groups, it was difficult to do so within the limitations of time and money. Thus, it is important to keep in mind that the results obtained here might not be replicated on subsequent samples of subjects. Finally, random sampling procedures were not used in this study. Rather, this study was conducted with volunteer subjects. Volunteer samples are more likely to be a biased sample of the target population. Thus, the use of volunteers in study can complicate the interpretation of research findings and their generalizability. 112 Several important issues can be suggested for future research from the findings of this study. Given greater resources, it would be desirable to examine: 1) possible cross-cultural gavelopmengal change between young children and college students in terms of motivational structures (e.g., perceptions of intelligence): 2) what would happen to Asian-American students who live in :39 cultures--an Asian culture at home and an American culture at school: and 3) possible cross-national differences yignin Asian cultures (e.g., Korea, Japan and China). These comparisons would enable us to fully understand motivational structures in terms of developmental issue, within culture variations, and cross-national variations. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CONSENT FORM 113 CONSENT FORM 1. I have freely consented to take part in a study being conducted by Mr. Hae-Ik Hwang, graduate student in Educational Psychology at Michigan State University. The study has been explained to me and I understand the explanation that has been given and what my participation will involve. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in the study at any time without penalty. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidence and that will remain anonymous. Within these restrictions, the general results of the study will be made available to me at my request. I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. I understand, that at my request, I can receive additional explanation of the study after my participation is completed. Participant Name: Date: APPENDIX B TAPED INSTRUCTION IAEEQ IE§IBUCTION Throughout this study, the experimenter is interested in the following two things: first, people's conceptions of intellectual ability or intelligence, and second, the relationship between perceptiveness and intellectual ability. Perceptiveness is alleged to be an important skill and a good predictor of intellectual ability. There will be two tasks requiring perceptiveness (The Perceptiveness Scale and The Concealed Figures Test) and two questionnaires (Intelligence Questionnaire and Attribution Questionnaire) in this study. All information will be kept strictly confidential. Absolutely no names will be used in the analysis of the data. The first task is a questionnaire on intelligence. You will be given a questionnaire booklet and two pencils with erasers. Please mark all of your answers on your questionnaire booklet. Please distribute the questionnaire booklets on intelligence to the students (Pause, then distribute questionnaire). The following scale requires perceptiveness. This scale is not an intelligence test, but it does measure the analytic processes involved in higher order thinking. This test, then, is a good predictor of intelligence. You will have 10 minutes to respond to the following 12 items. Please distribute all materials for the Perceptiveness Scale (Pause, then distribute scale). All of you should have are 1 test booklet, 1 answer sheet, and two pencils. If you don't have all of these, please raise your hand, and ask for the items you need (Pause, then make sure). (Tape Instruction Continues ....) (Experimenter) For this test you will be given an (Hold up answer answer sheet on which to mark all sheet) your answers, and one test booklet. No marks are to be made in the test booklet. Look at your answer sheet. 114 115 (Tape Instruction Continues ....) Fill in the particulars at the top of page. Remember, all your answers will be made on the answer sheet. Don't mark the test booklet in any way. Take the test booklet but --- Don't open it. Put your answer sheet in front of the book. This is a test of observation and Clear thinking. Open your test book to the first to page. You see this is No. 1, and on your answer sheet there is a column of numbers 1, 2, 3, and so forth upto 14. The first two questions are examples. The top part of problem 1 is a pattern with a bit out out of it. Look at the pattern, think what the missing bit must be like to complete the pattern correctly, both along and down, and then find the right bit out of the eight bits shown below. Only one of these bits is perfectly correct. No. 1 completes the pattern correctly downwards, but is wrong the other way. No. 4 is correct along, but is wrong downwards. Put your finger on the bit which is correct both ways. No. 8, is the right bit, isn't it ? So the solution is No. 8, and you write the figure "8" next to No. 1 in the first column of your scoring form. Don't mark the test booklet. Now turn the page over and do No. 2 by yourselves. The answer of course is No. 4. See that you have put the figure 4 next to No. 2, in the first column of your answer sheet. Have you all done that ? (Pause, then check) (Experimenter) (Hold up the test booklet) (Hold up answer sheet and point column 1) (Check that this is done) (Allow 20( seconds) (Check answer to make sure all subjects are working in correct columns) 116 You will find the problems in this set soon get difficult. Whether the problems are easy or difficult, you will notice that to solve them you have to use the same method of working all the time. You look along each row and decide what the missing figure is like. You look down each column and decide again, and you choose the figure you find is right both ways. Don't mark the test booklet. Go on with the rest by yourselves. You will be given 10 minutes. Please experimenter, look at your stop watch, and allow 10 minutes (Pause, then Check to starting point). (After 10 minutes the experimenter will turn on the tape recorder.) Stop working please. Close your test booklet. I hope you enjoyed this scale. Please experimenter, collect the Perceptiveness Scale booklet immediately (pause, then collect Perceptiveness Scale Booklet). Now, you will be given an answer sheet for this scale and one blue pen. According to the answer sheet, you can score your answer sheet by yourself. Don't forget to use the blue pen to score it. Each question stands for one point. After finishing your scoring, write down the total points on your answer sheet, and check that you have put your name, date of birth and sex on the answer sheet. If you have any questions, feel free to ask the experimenter (Pause, then distribute an answer sheet and one blue pen). (take a 5-minute break for self-scoring) Please experimenter, collect all materials from the students' desks. Then, distribute the norm chart for the Perceptiveness Scale to the students (Pause, then distribute the norm chart). This norm chart stands for the national norms for 18- to 24-year-olds. That is, you can compare your score that you have just received with the national norms which average 18- to 24-year-old persons receive. If you have any questions, feel free to ask the experimenter (Pause). The following questionnaire relates to your performance in the Perceptiveness Scale. Please do not skip any questions, and answer all questions with honesty (Pause, then distribute attribution questionnaire). 117 (The experimenter will distribute the questionnaires.) The final task is called the Concealed Figures Test. The test booklet contains one page of directions with two practice exercises, and seven pages of test items. The test proper contains 49 items, and must be solved within 10 minutes (Pause, then mention carefully listening). (Just before presenting the Concealed Figure Test to the subjects, the tape instruction comments about the difficulty involved in this test. In the moderately-difficult condition:) "Considering the time limit we are imposing upon you, these tests can be considered MODERATELY DIFFICULT. Under similar circumstances, average college students presumably like yourself have done moderately well for the most part, with a small percentage doing very well and a small percentage doing very poorly. Based on this evidence you should probably do fairly well." (In the extremely-difficult condition:) "Considering the time limit we are imposing upon you, these tests can be considered EXTREMELY DIFFICULT and therefore you shouldn't do terribly well. Average college students presumably like yourself have not done well at all. In fact, they have done rather poorly for the most part, so we are very much aware of how difficult this task is." Please experimenter, distribute 1 copy of the Concealed Figures Test booklet (Pause). Please write your name, age, sex, date, and any additional information on the front page of your test booklet. Do not open the test booklet. You will have practice with several sample questions with the experimenter. If you have any questions during the practice exercises, feel free to ask to the experimenter. (Experimenter: Have the subjects fill in their answers to the practice exercises. Caution them not to open the test booklet after completing the practice exercises. If any of the subjects do not have the correct answers, make sure that they understand what it is they are to do before starting the timed part of the test. Answer any questions that the subjects ask. When the subjects have finished the practice exercises, then turn on the tape). 118 The row of designs below is a sample item of this test. The parts have been labeled to make description easier. These labels do not appear in the test items. The left hand design in each row is the figgza. You are to decide whether or not the fiigaxa is concealed in each of the four g;a_igg§ to the right. Put a check mark (v) in the parentheses under a gxagiag, if it contains the Eigara. Put a zero (0) in the parentheses under a gxagiag, if it does not contain the fiiggxa. Look at the row of designs below. In the row above a zero (0) has been written in the parentheses under drawing 1. The first drawing is a square but it is larger than the Eiggza. A zero (0) has been written under drawing a. Although the second drawing contains a square of exactly the same size as the Eigaga, it has been turned. Check marks (v) have been written under the third and fourth drawings since they each contain a square of exactly the same size as the figure and have not been turned. It does not matter that the figaga contained in drawings three and four is on a different level from the fiiggra at the left. (Pause then read:) "Here is another example for practice. Try it." You should have placed check marks (v) in the parentheses under the first and third drawings and zeros (0) in the parentheses under the second and fourth drawings. When you get the signal to begin, turn the page and mark more problems of the same kind. Work as fast and accurately as you can, but do not guess. Wrong answers will count against you. You are not expected to finish in the time allowed. You will have exactly 10 minutes to do as much as you can. Please experimenter, look at the stop watch, and give the start sign to students (Pause). (After exactly 10 minutes, the experimenter turns on the tape recorder.) Stop working, and Close the test booklet please. Please experimenter, collect the test booklet immediately. Thank you very much for participating in this study. (Debriefing and answering questions). APPENDIX C INTELLIGENCE QUESTIONNAIRE 119 W Name Sex Age Major Date 1. The following questions are related to intellectual ability. Everyonehasdifferentideasabaltintelligenoeandeanttolmow whatyouthink. misqtmtlonisinterestingtoMabout:there ismrightanswerbecausepeoplehavedifferentideas. Ijustwant tokmwwhatyourideasare. Pleasecirclethernmberwhichyou thinkrepreeentsthebestanswer. What factorsareincludedinyourgeneraldefinitimof intelligence ? Please circle all mmbers by itans you think should becomsideredasaspectsof intelligence. Whatelsedoyouthink that the definition of intelligence should include ? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Verbal Ability Personal Adjustment School Achievanent 'malght Help Psople Math Skills Scientific Thinking Writing Ability Knowledge Mallory Artistic Talent Interpersonal Skills Reading Ability Personality Being Able to Share Knowledge ( e.g., to teach others, to explain things to people) Good Manner(s) Creativity Cooperation Physical Skills Deductive and Inductive Reasoning Motivation (e.g., effort, curiosity) Value Moral Behavior Problem-Solving Ability Learning Speed Mental Imagery Musical Ability 120 2. Domoreintelligentpeopletalkorspeakdifferentlythanaverage intelligent people ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 no yes strongly disagree not sure strongly agree 3.Supposeweusedthislinetorepreeentallthepeopleintheworld frunthemostintelligenttotheleastintelligent. Iet'ssuppose thatthispersonisthemostintelligattandthispersonistheleast intelligent. meryoneelse isalongthe line. Please circlethe mmbershowwhereyoaare. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 least most intelligent average intelligent 4. Tl'temost inportant factor explaining success in school is intellectual ability. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 no yes strongly disagree not sure strongly agree 5. Ifaperson isvery intelligent, theywereborn that way (nautre). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 no yes strongly disagree not sure strongly agree 6. Do more intelligent people act differently or do anything differently compared to less intelligent people ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 no yes strongly disagree not sure strongly agree 7. Effort is the most important factor explaining success in school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 no yes strongly disagree not sure strongly agree 121 8. Intellectalalabilitycznbeincreasedifwetryhard. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 no yes strongly disagree not sure strongly agree 9. Howcapableacadanicallydoyouseeyourselftobe? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 mach below average nuch above average average 10. Psople who are not so intelligent become intelligent by the things theydoard/ortheexperienoestheyhave. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 no yes strongly disagree not sure strongly agree 11.Whatwearebornwithandtheexperienceswe'vehadarebothirportant in causing us to be intelligent. However, one of these factors may be relativelynnreimportantthantheother. Ifaskedtochoosewhichis mstinportant,whichwo.lldyouselect? Pleasenumberbythefactor whidlyouthinkismoreinportant. 1. whatwearebornwith 2. experienceswehavehad 12.Apersonwillalwaysbethesameinhowintelligenttheyare, orthey canchangeinintelligence. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 theyaresame theycznchange notsure H2 ME es (Intelligence) SEN ms as e um a: an mam sass Hagen aem meme. me sew naeem am an as ans an: as amm. sane sum are men same as an» sum. m ease eammm smse ammo. MSSMQ naeam am us me was an: an mam see same. ran: an ass eam seems me m eem memo. -ne mes 5mm: same rem oas m same. 1. ms seem as see use as am seem: gamma? sum aammm use same: ass: seam rem as 05 mans. see new s as Ram use see aam sammam an: enema? 1 EN 8% (Verbal Ability) 2 me ESQ (Personal Adjustment) 3 M2 SE (School Achievement) 4 ”2% (Thought) 5. Wfig (Help People) 6 ems (Math Skills) 7 EMS M2 (Scientific Thinking) 8 RE? (ertlne Ability) 9. NM (Knowledge) 10. use (Memory) 11. WSE me (Artistic Talent) 12. WE EM (Interpersonal Skills) 13. ENE (Reading Ability) 14. ea (Personality) 15. INS SQBtElt: as (Gil: era's 7lEKl7ll-l AlEl‘éolPll MES semi-.- 21) 16. £3 WM (Good Manners) 17. Q53 (Creativity) 18. gas (Cooperation) 19. ENE as (we: Physical Skills) 20. ESE NEH M2 (Deductive and Inductive Reasoning) 21. EN 9% (ha. 2N3: Motivation) 22. ENE (Value) 23. EQE @% (Moral Behavior) 24. EM mas (Problem-Solving Ability) 25. £3 £5 (Learnins Speed) 26. SSE 33% (Mental Imagery) 2?. son as (Musical Ability). N3 (Other) C0 123 “343' ”SE ES ““3150" U|3fl 93l7il—f Q1219; all (21 I mm» asmmv mus 1 2 3 4 5 6 23 as )4:ng 2.": SE Alf-3% 7P3 “3111' ”ELSE. $51 7P8 945" 0| {*3 Al’g‘fltll‘. EWCI'. 0| MEIE 7fé!'xl3=.'0| ”@3391 2942] 95 Ali-IE- 0! £301! QJKIQ ?d‘flthl- 013'?“ gmmumm 9&0! DiCIOfl 94““: 7f5 LlEH-ll 1 2 3 A 5 6 7H5! UMP-51 At? 5199 all) Oil OIJ «l 05! 7FBP o ‘— mmme mess mmmm 2 M ”as we mmmmm: sue ea mum 3mm a: emam: ogarwa. ~7 me an ”INN €383 £15333}: 7%! S393 93'8- Xl’fi SE‘ELICL Oil-l2 1 2 3 A 5 6 22 as ‘32? 9.’ 7HEJOI 0H9- Hammers 2318 Erie 749mm. orLIE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7&5} 57H OL- To “5111' M538- EE-AFEJUH HI'O‘HH CHE?“ 93"%3l'71|-l 019943' OI'LIE 1 2 3 A 5 6 7POI’ 514 Oh. ‘T'O see mzmum ass game me see 992mm mus 1 2 3 4 5 6 7’6} 1:1?! Oh To mm see em 2mm gym same e32 ¢ ms mus 1 2 3 4 5 6 39 ea 0:! r2 on or o! r 2 on 0?: CE?“ Malamm? 7 01! 39 as 7 0" 0:! 2 OIJ 0?: ?J‘é'HCl . 0" OIJ ‘\) 0‘: r 2 01* 10. 11. 12- 2mm 4 m UH-IE 9317? S993 3mm mum mamas 9mm gem mm: 5 1 2 3 4 5 as mm as xumm me mm 991% auLuer agar §L|Clu 1 2 3 4 5 32 ea mm: aims 2121 new: 396* a seam sum. 2mm m s 201 2?. C1 €23! XIE BELIEF. 939-! SR‘PJLW‘? 9&0! Q213l'7l01l C1 124 £991 8fo Raw 1. 2mm mm: mmu a 2. pm» 559 5 ”am emu nae mt eg see aeumv 4 msmm? 1 2 3 4 5 eg as mam»? 6 7 OH?- ES 0V3 ‘3 mm: 9J8?! XII-1‘3 AtEJOI 6 7 Oil 2:"?! 83‘ it? XHJS “$10!?“ 3ft 7.. £501! 3MB 0’5 ‘3 92325} S t‘fl‘fi'clfl' 01: 21m C13- OE “LUIS. E: 2 mm ham as 6 7 A Q Saw-91c: S APPENDH D WSW ANSWERSHEEI‘ WA POMB PERCEPTIVENESSSQIE ANSWERSHEEI' Name FORM A ( ) FORM B ( ) Date of Birth Major Date SAMPLE mm 1 ( ) SAMPLE QUESTION 2 ( ) QUESTION 1 ( ) QUESTION 2 ( ) men 3 ( ) QUESTION 4 ( ) QJESTION 5 ( ) QUESI'ION 6 ( ) man 7 ( ) men 8 ( ) QUESTION 9 ( ) mm 10 ( ) men 11 ( ) QUESTIONIZ ( ) PERCEPI'IVE‘IE‘SSSQLE FORMA 126 127 a _Y 31:: 5:31 a! - a a a a l_ a! I l 128 11k ~|lll w V _ Villa \1/ w / 1 '0 I} .YI‘vE 1‘11. . \..\ \ ‘\ \ EA: 8 =me£ E z 2‘ y “no .-.... —. ---—-..”...— -' \/ \/ \/ .41 81v é/v , \O/ m/ ...... it.) > > Au/VAV I 69, \/ \/ AV 5A1 33581:? lfiifi 33%- 44:0 $5 5&9 E) 3%) 8) 8%) IE) 131 \-/ ©>\ 3 >6) 0 132 2:) 13> «2) #0 m r-—%> 84> m (>11) 1’1) 1‘) 1);) 1) =5) r w 0‘. O“ @GG meal. e) )> > 123).) D 54> AA 137 mil A ,llll ......A... K 1| II ml all ” k\ / ll 139 O O 6 O O O O ‘\.-/. 140 141 W LOW A) This norm.chart stands fer the national norms for 18- to 24dyear~olds. That is, you can.compare your score that you.have just received with.the national norms whidh average 18- to 24-year-old receive. RAW'SOGRE PERCENT OF SUBJECTS RECEIVING THE SCORE very High. 12 2 % High 11 14 % Average 9-10 68 % Low 5-8 14 % Very Low 0-4 2 % W8 SW (POEM B) q ! IIIE.‘ l VII - 1 I I ”I5! I! _ In 146 147 ' gazfiq I) WW EM > I© eao @oAmA o) > )©> >0 m) , HAW. ..A..0A. I+a I) <3) D) 19) I) :62) ED 3%) 152 > _§_ > i) > ....> AAA. , — _ H l——. E: r- I—I n I. I n ll Isa ) ‘ >31) 3) ”IND “‘) mug W (FORM B) 156 157 W (30—12115) 'Ihismmchartstarxisforthenationalnormsfor 18-to 24-year-olds. ‘Ihat is, you can oanpare your score that you have just received with the rational norms which average 18- to 24-year-old receive. RAWSCDRE PERCENTOFSUBTECI’S Very High 9-12 2 % High 5-8 14 96 Average 3-4 68 % Low 1-2 14 95 Vexylnw 0 2% APPENDIX E ATIRIHJI'ION QIESI'IONNAIRE 158 A ON ONI‘UXIRE Name Sex Age Major Date 1. I perfbrmed Perceptiveness Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very poorly very well poorly average well 2. ‘Why did.you.perform.this way ? (Circle only one the best answer) a) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I'm.not.good at Iflnlreal good at this sort of task. this sort of task b) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I didn't try I really try hard hard enough c) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The task.was 'Ihe task.was very easy very difficult d) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I had bad luck I had good luck 3. How do you rate importance (value) of the task ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unimportant very important average 4. To what extent did you feel that the success or failure on this task is under your control ? l 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all entirely under under my control not sure my control 159 5. To what extent did you feel the Perceptiveness Scale was indicative of intelligence ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all very indicative indicative not sure 6. To what extent did you feel the Perceptiveness Scale was interesting ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all very interesting 'moderately interesting interesting 7. HOW much would you feel about your performance ? (Circle only one the best answer) a) Shame or Humiliation 1 2 3 4 5 ' 6 7 not at all ‘very much b) Surprise 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all very mudh c) Guilt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all very mudh d) Satisfaction l 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all very much e) Pride 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all very much 8. If you were to choose the next task, the task.would be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very easy extremely difficult 160 ME (Attribution) SE“ l. H: EM fiE (Perceptiveness Scale)§ ¢@%SUQ. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 W2 Mimm 282E W2 Q 2. EH 9238' 012} EDI 9.11am? (718 E'EE' 519.1 21210“ 011) a) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lit 0|?! 5655-91 LN: DIE §$9J mus 011-?- sacr “Hills 0H2 6135) b) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LR: sam Li’: 9216! seam EI‘RIEl 5:3‘512‘51 c) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 I'll":- 2 Bill: 0119. “an UH?- Oiaiiicl d) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Li: 80! mum LP: EDI 55-92131 “E (Perceptiveness Scale>fl £92 (HM)% MEN Oh I— "I ?S‘ 1311‘.) 1731‘? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 011-?- 55951‘! 9151 0119?- 593in 4. SEE Elli—'35 (Perceptiveness Scale )Oil 33311 gig-0(1) 3111171 01%. SEDI-Xl ”71:12. :éiilétfiil mam: .Lzé'LiflW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 78-31 ‘3‘"?! “3’35! SW1; A: mam a 3391” 161 5. S38 M: SEW“ EMSE (Perceptiveness Scale>fi ME 2% EAIEICE hill-WP? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3561 EM Eli-:51 EESI IEMEJCi 6. SEE M: SEW“ EMfiE (Perceptiveness Scale)” amen: hZJLIDi? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 {‘51 80153” ERIE? 0H9— SUI 9152131 7. 9:98 9:221 E'XIS'JE ¢2¥§110fl £43101 015171! hZJI-lnt? a) ¢M (ems: Shame or Humiliation) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5'31 1:917“ 93:13} 0119 910! hl'Cl‘ b) ems (9%: Surprise) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7.551 Him 91:13? 0119- 910| :K'Cl c) 5.1842; (71542:: Guilt) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5361 SDIXI 916m OHS?- E'IUI :K'Ci d) BS2 (Satisfaction) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 {‘61 5”!“ EXEC? 0H9— E'lol SEC? e ) SKI ( Pr 1 de ) i 2 3 4 5 6 7 5161 will! Bit-Ct 0H?- ‘310! ':.:"_'C1 8. 93°: 82'”! Era—a 114113 :‘JQ‘E’JUPJ 01": EMIS- C’Ei'aifi'SLIDi‘? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7‘ (mg. ug- 2: Gil-C.)- 018153- 1* APPENDIX F WHERETEST 162 * ' ~ . 7 Please fill in: -- " CLOSURE FLEXIBILITY , - (Concealed Figures) * x A... s... 2 (Form 2A) ~ I« ' __ Occupation _ ~ A Date 'veloped by: L.L. Thuntue. Ph.D. and T.8. 1.11:". Ph.D. . The Psychometric Labor-ten . The University of North Carolina Directions: The row of designs below is a sample item of this test. The parts have been la- beled to make description easier. These labels do not appear in the test items. The.let‘t hand design in each row is the figure. ' You are to decide whether or not the figure is concealed in each of the fourdramngs to the right. Put a check mark (4) in the parentheses under adrawing, if it contains the flare. Puta zero (0) in the parentheses under adrawing. if it does not contain the figure. Look at the row of designs below. Figure Drawings 1 Z 3 4 (m (m M m- in the row above a zero (0) has been written in the parentheses under drawmg l_. The first drawmg is a square but it is larger than the figre. A zero (0) has been written under drawing 3,. Although the second drawing contains a square ot‘exact- ly the same size as the figure. it has been turned. Check marks (V) have been written under the third and fourth drawmgs since they each contain a square of exactly the same Size as the figure and have not been turned. It does not matter that the figure contained in drawmgs three and four is on a different level from the fizure at the left. Sample: Here is anather example for practice. Try it. Q3 (1 () \':)'1.s":)u'.: have missed checkmarks (J) .n the parentheses under the first anathzrd J (“'W'” '5 and 'erns (1.)) tn the p' rentneses under the second and iourtn drawings. -.-u.~.~-- ‘;'«";L' GE" TEES SEGIJ;\'1.'Z'O BEGIN, turn the page and mars mareorooxms 'Vi.a-.‘ A n‘ m -,;:'.\.c .;;nd_ '.'.'1.|rl( 1.5 (as: 11m: .15 iccurateij: is you can. :3: do not guess. '.'.':'-""; answers zvzll count .iqaznst 7:011. You are not expected to :;r.;sn tn the time .‘."t'.'.v-'i '- nu ‘.'u'l'.'. Iifl‘JP exacts: ten minutes to do as much 33 You can. a a 163 -2- 2%. \\\\ El!“ .7 l 0.1.... L l l ( llill y/ _..... 1AA - DO NOT STOP. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. 164 -3- DO NOT STOP. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. 165 _ / / U0 Lb ~ o, l l i 1 l l l l I 7774 . 1:1 1:1 [:1 M 1:11:13 /’/%: l «f» I!“ / I ll: (1 (l l) (l 131 j ' u : i L—J .1 :. “-7 l l LU #71 {“7“ . ' . ll| “- l) l) (l ’1 DO NOT STOP. GO ON TO THE. NEXT PAGE. 166 A ”—7 / zl/K f | 'l._____ ;) ________// l— ) l i l l l I I . __..____ .\ /\ —.——-—, " ‘\. \ __ I +-———: '.——4. ' f:- g I, ;r__/_ ‘ I]! /, \. \ \ ——-—~—' ,/ / —+4— V' f l l l l i ‘ DO NOT STOP. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. 167 EXT PACE. DO NOT STOP. GO ON TO THE 2‘.’ 168 (l (l l) (l 5‘ O A. l .1 (l (l (l (1 DO NOT STOP. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. 169 W [I I If a]. k‘ <<1 STOP HERE -- WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. REFERENCES BEEEBEEQES Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in human: Critique and reformulation. I2urnal_Qf_Abn2rmal_Rsxsbclssz. 31(1). 49-74. Ames, C. (1984). Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: A cognitive motivational analysis. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), s o 'v mgtixgtign‘_ygl‘_1, (pp. 177-208). New York: Academic Press. Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1984). Systems of student and teacher motivation: Toward a qualitative definition. J2urnal_2f_§dusatignal_£sxshglggx. 16. 535-556. Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1987). Achievement goals in the a sroo : Stude ' strate 'es and ot'v t’o processes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C. Anderson, C. A., & Jennings, D. L. (1980). When experiences of failure promote expectations of success: The impact of attributing failure to ineffective strategieS- lgura_l_2f_2srssnalitx is. 393- 405. Bar-Tal, D. (1978). Attributional analysis of achievement- related behavior. v' w o cat'o sea c 259-271. Brislin, R. (1970). Back translation for cross-cultural research. on a of 055- u 185-216. Brislin, R. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), oo o c 33- tu psyghglogy: methgdolggy (vgl.2). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 170 171 Brookover, W. B., LePere, J. M., Hanachek, D. E., Thomas, S., & Erickson, E. L. (1965). abilit1_and_sshool_asbisxement1 11 (U 8 Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project No. 845). East Lansing, MI: U.S. Office of Research and Publications, Michigan State University. Brophy, J. (1983). Fostering student learning and motivation in the elementary school classroom. In 8. Paris, G. Olson, & H. Stevenson (Eds.), Learning_ aad_motixation_in_ths_classroom (pp- 283-305)- Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, J., & Weiner, B. (1984). Affective consequences of ability versus effort ascriptions: Controversies, resolutions. and quandaries. Journal_of_fidusational Earsholosx 12. 146-158. Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. iguxngl_gfi Ed_sational_£sxsholosx 51. 1- 22- Cattell, R. B. (1971). ' ° ' ' ' s t wt and_ag§ign. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Chandler, T. A., Shama, D. 0., Wolf, F. M., Planchard, S. K. (1981). Multiattributional causality: A five cross-national samples study. iggrnal_gf Qr2ss:§nltural.£§xsholosx. 12(2). 207-221- Covington, M. V. (1984). The motive for self-worth. In R- Ames & C- Ames (Eds ) Researsb_2n_motixation in_edusati_n (Vol 1): §t_dsnt_m_ti_a_ion (pp- 78-114). New York: Academic Press. Covington, M. V., & Beery, R. G. (1976). Sslf:sortb_and_ssbool_learnins- New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. 172 Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1979). Effort: The double-edged sword in school achievement. Jonnnal g: Educational_£sxsholosx. 11. 169-182. Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1984). Controversies or consistencies: A reply to Brown and Weiner. on a , 1g, 159-168. Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1985). Ability and effort valuation among failure-avoiding and failure-accepting students. lgn:nn1_gfi_£fingn§ignnl Esxsbolosx 11(4). 446-459- Cunningham, S. (1984, September). Cross-cultural study of achievement calls for changes in home. AEA_MQninn:, p. 10. Diener, C. I. & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure- I2urnal_of_£ersonalitx_and_§221al Esxsnslesx as. 451-462- Diener, C. I. & Dweck, C. S. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: II.The processing of success. Jonnnnl of Eensgnality and Soginl Psygnglggy, 32(5), 940-952. Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessneSS- Iournal_of_2ersonalitx_and_§osial Esxsh_losx 31(4). 674-685. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American_£sxsbolosist sl(10). 1040-1048- Dweck, C. S. & Bempechat, J. (1983). Children's theories of intelligence: Consequences for learning. In S. Paris, G. Olson, & H. Stevenson (Eds.), Leanning nng nnnivntion in Eng glnssroon (pp. 239-256). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 173 Dweck, C. S. & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), c' ' 'o o t a o 'a ve me t (Vol.4) (pp. 643-691). New York: Wiley. Dweck, C. S., Goetz, T. E., & Strauss, N. E. (1980). Sex differences in learned helplessness: IV. An experimental and naturalistic study of failure generalization and its mediators. innnnn1_nf_ E_rs2nalitx__nd_§osisl_£_xsholosL _§(3). 441-451. Dweck, C. S., & Reppucci, N. D. (1973). Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children. a e so ' oc' l Psychglggy, 2§J 109-116. Dweck, C. S., & Wortman, C. B. (1982). Learned helplessness, anxiety, and achievement motivation: Neglected parallels in cognitive, affective, and coping responses. In H. W. Krohne, & L. Laux (Eds.), Ashiexsmsnt1_stress1_and_snxistx (pp- 93-125)- New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Ensor, Paul. (1987, January 15). An education hell. Ear_Eastern_Esonomis_Bexier. 30-37- Evans, H. M. (1981). Internal-External locus of control and work association: Research with Japanese and American studentS- Isurnal_2f_§r2s§:§ultuzal Esyghology, 11(3), 372-382. Fiske, E. B. (1984, June 14). U. 8. pupils lag from grade 1. study finds. The_uer_12rk_Times. p- 1. 21- Fowler, J. W., & Peterson, P. L. (1981). Increasing reading persistence and altering attributional style of learned helpless children. Journal_of_zdssatioaal E§¥_bsl_gL 1;. 251-260 174 Frankel, A., & Snyder, M. L. (1978). Poor performance following unsolvable problems: Learned helplessness or egotism ? o o e s a c EsxsholosL 36(12), 1415-1423. Fry, P. S., & Ghosh, R. (1980). Attributions of success and failure: Comparison of cultural differences between Asian and Caucasian children. 19n;nn1_nfi Qrosszsultural_zs¥snolosx. 11(3). 343-363- Guilford. J- P- (1967)- The_nature_2f_human_intellisease- New York: McGraw-Hill. Guilford, J. P. (1982). Cognitive psychology' 3 ambiguities: Some suggested remedies Esygnnlggig_l 3321:! 22. 48-59- Harari, O. & Covington, M. V. (1981). Reactions to achievement behavior from a teacher and student perspective: A developmental analysis. Angzignn E_BEQEiQflQl_B§§2§IED_lQ_£D§l l§(1): 15‘23- Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivation and informational components. Qevglonmental Earsholosx. 11: 300'312- Hess, R. D., Kashiwagi, K., Azuma, H., Price, G. G., & Dickson, W. P. (1980). Maternal expectations for mastery of developmental tasks in Japan and the United States. e a 'on o a o P ho a 15, 259-271. Hess, R. D., Holloway, S., McDevitt, T., Azuma, H., Kashiwagi, K., Nagano, S., Miyake, K., Dickson, W. P., Price, G., & Hatano, G. (1986). Family influences on school readiness and achievement in Japan and the United States: An overview of a longitudinal study. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), gniig develonmgn; and gdugntign in gnpnn (pp. 147-166). New York: Freeman. 175 Hess, R. D., Chang, Chin-Mei, & McDevitt, T. M. (1987). Cultural variations in family beliefs about children's performance in mathematics: Comparations among People's Republic of China, Chinese-American, and Caucasian-American families. Jgnznnl 9f Edngationnl BSYSDQlQQY. 12 (2). 179-188- Hsu. F- (1963)- 9lan1_Qaste_and_Qlubi_A_somnaratixe_studx of_Qhinese1_Hindu1_and_Amerisan_Eaxs_of_Life. New York: Van Nostrand. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: A review and comparison of strategies. - t o , 1§(2), 131-152. Jensen, A. R. (1973). Level I and Level II abilities in three ethnic group8- American_Educational_Bssearsh_ Journal. 19. 263-276- Jensen, A. R., & Inouye, A. R. (1980). Level I and level II abilities in Asian, White, and Black children. WI 4: 413-490 Yu, Eui-Young & Phillips, E. H. (Eds.) (1983). T 'tio ' 0 Los Angeles, CA: Center for Korean-American and Korean Studies, California State University. Lao, Rosina C. (1977). Levenson's IPC (Internal-External Control) Scale: A comparison of Chinese and American StudentS- I2urnal_2f_Qr2ss:§ultural.£sxsbolos¥. 2(1). 113-124. Licht, B- G- (1987)- Tbe_interastion_bstrsen_childrenls_ ngnievement—relnngd beliefs and tne chanacteristigs of different nasks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C. 176 Lynn, Richard (1982). IQ in Japan and the United States shows a growing disparity. Natu , 297, 222-223. Maehr, M. (1983). On doing well in science: Why Johnny no longer excels? : Why Sara never did? In S. Paris, G. Olson. H. Stevenson (Eds ). Learning_and_notixatioa_ in_the_slassroom (pp- 179- 210L Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. Maehr, M. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1980). Culture and achievement motivation: A second look. In N. Warren (Ed-)- Studies_in_Qrosszsultural_£§xcholosx (Vol.3) (pp. 221-267). New York: Academic Press. McDevitt, T. M., Hess, R. D., & Chang Chin-Mei (1986). usa ' u 'o s dren' s e m 'cs 0 t ree u u a1 rou s: t e's ub 'c f ' a h' s - e ica saucasianzAmerican_famili_so Paper Presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. McFarland, C., & Rose, M. (1982). Impact of causal attributions on affective reactions to success and failure. a o ' n c'a Earsholosx. 51(5): 937-945- Meece, J. L. (1981). Individual differences in the affective reactions of middle and high school students to mathematics: A social cognitive perspective. Dissertation_Abe:rasts.lnternational. 42. 2035A- (University Microfilms No. 8125167). Meece, J. L., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1987). Elgngntany s 0 hi dren's mot'v t' a o i t' n and tterns of engagement ln classroom actlvltles. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C. Miller, D. T. (1976). Ego involvement and attributions for success and failure. u o c 'al 28 ygnology, 15, 901- 906. 177 Miller, D. T., 8 Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? _§xch_logical_§ulletia. §2(2): 213 225- Miller, I. W., & Norman, W. H. (1979). Learned helplessness in human: A review and attributional model. Psychological_fiulletin £5. 93- 119- Mulphy. 6.. & Mulphy. L- B- (1968). Asian_nsxcholosx. New York: Basic Books. Munro, D. (1979). Locus-of-control attribution: Factors among blacks and whites in Africa. ignnnnl_gf_gng§§; QQlLBI§l_£§Y£thQQYI 19. 157-172. Nicholls, J. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perception of academic attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require more abilitY- Qbild_nexelonment. 12. 800-814. Nicholls, J. (1979). Quality and equality in intellectual development: The role of motivation in education, American_2s¥sholosist. 11. 1071-1084- Nicholls, J. (1983). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation: A theory and its implication for education. In 8. Paris, G. Olson, & H. Stevenson, (Ede-). Learnins_and_m2tixation_in_tbe_classroom (pp. 211-237). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Nicholls, J. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Rgseancn on Mgtlvntlon in Educngion (Vol.1): Sgudent Mgtigntign (pp. 39-73). New York: Academic Press. Nicholls, J., & Miller, A. T. (1983). The differentiation of the concepts of difficulty and ability. cniig Dav Mlgpnen 55, 951- 959. 178 Nicholls, J., & Miller, A. T. (1984). Development and its discontents: The differentiation of the concept of ability. In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), The ngglgpment of agh1e1e_ent_meti_atien (pp. 185-218)- Greenwich. Conn.: JAI Press. Ogbu, J. U. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective. gn11g_pgyglgpmgn§, 52, 413-429. Ravens, J. C. (1962). Ezggxgsgiyg_ng§:1g§. London: Cambridge University Press. Rohlen, T. P. (1983). Japan;§_fiign_§gngglg. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Deci, E. L. (1985). A motivational analysis of self-determination and self-regulation in education. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), e e ' ' ' ' : Vol. 2 (pp. 1-51). New York: Academic Press. Sexton, M. A., Licht, B. G., Brown, D. A., & Linden, T. A. (1984). 2rediet1Qns_ef_children1§_re§pen§e§_te_ ' 'c : he'r ' itions o 'ntell' e . Paper presented at the convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada. Siegler, R. S., & Richards, D. D. (1982). The development of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), gaggbgok 2f_fl_men_lntellig_nee (pp- 897-971) New York: Cambridge University Press. Simons, C. (1987L They get by with a lot of help from their kyoiku mamas. fimitn_gnian, 44- 53. 179 Snyder, M. L., Smoller, B., Strenta, A., & Frankel, A. (1981). A comparison of egotism, negativity, and learned helplessness as explanations for poor performance after unsolvable problems. go ogzgal of Eer_2nal1_2_1ng_§22111_2_¥2121221 1_(1). 24-30. Snyder, M. L., Stephan, W. G., & Rosenfield, D. (1976). Egotism and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1;, 435-441. Snyder, M. L., Stephan, W. G., & Rosenfield, D. (1978). Attributional egotism. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), w s t u on Research (Vol.2) (pp. 91-117). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M. A., a Ford, C. E. (1986). Distancing after group success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure. J2ur_al_2f_2ere2nali1x_and_§221al_£_xehelegx 11(2). 382- 388. Song, Myung-Ja & Ginsburg, H. P. (1985L The development orm o e t a 'nk'n ' orean and American ghiigrgn. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago Spence, J. T. (1985). Achievement American style. The rewards and costs of individualism. gaggigag Psychologist, 59(12), 1285-1295. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1983). Achievement-related motives and behavior. In J. T. Spence (Ed. ), Achievement and achievement 0 v s: s c nd c'o o i l a roa hes (pp. 7-74). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. 180 Sternberg, R. J., Conway, B. E., Ketron, J. L., Bernstein, M. (1981). People's conceptions of intelligence. Jgnrnal of Personality and Sgginl £§¥£h21291: 11(1), 35-55- Sternberg, R. J., & Powell, J. S. (1982). Theories of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), finngbgnk_gr nann_inrgllig§ngg (pp. 975-1005). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). General intellectual ability. In R- J- sternberq (Ed.), Human_abilitie§1_bn_ 1nf2rmatignznreeessing_eeergash (pp. 5-29)- New York: W.H.Freeman and Company. Stevenson, Harold W., & Azuma, Hiroshi (1983). IQ in Japan and the United States. Narnrg, 19g, 291-292. Stevenson, H. W., Stigler, J. W., Lee, Shin-ying, & Lucker, G. W. (1985). Cognitive performance and academic achievement of Japanese, Chinese, and American children. shild_nexelenmen§. §§(3). 718-734- Stevenson, H. W., Stigler, J. W., Lee, S.-Y., Kitamura, 8., Kimura, S., and Kato, T. (1986). Achievement in mathematics. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (EdS-). Qh1ld_dexel22men1_and_ed29111en_in_leeen (pp. 201-216). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Stigler, J. W., Lee, S. Y., Lucker, G. W., & Stevenson, H. W. (1982). Curriculum and achievement in mathematics: A study of elementary school children in Japan, Taiwan, and the United States. Jgnrnnl_nf_ Educational_zsxshelegx. 11. 315-322- Stipek, D. J. (1981). Children's perceptions of their own and their classmates' ability. du 'ona £§¥Qh2129¥a 11: 404-410- 181 Stipek, D. J. (1983). A developmental analysis of pride and shame. finnnn Devgignment, an, 42-54. Stipek, D. J. (1984L Developmental aspects of achievement motivation in children. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.). Be_ear2b_2n_Met1xation_1n_fiduga_1on (Vol 1): §_udens unriygrinn. New York: Academic Press. Stipek, D. J. & Hoffman, J. (1980L Development of children's performance-related judgments. gniin_ Dexelepmenf 21. 912-914- Tallman, I., Marotz-Baden, R., & Pindas, P. (1983). Ad les e s c' ' at'o ' c ss-c u s tive. New York: Academic Press. Triandis (Ed.). (1972). n l s' o s ' ’ve gnlrnre. New York: John Wiley. Vernon. P. E. (1982)- Ine_ab11111e§_end_ash1exemente_of_ Qr123111§_1n_north_5merieao New York: Academic Press. Weiner, B. (1972). Ineorigs of motivation: From neghanism to cggnition. Chicago, IL: Markham Publishing Company. Weiner, B. (Ed.). (1974). A ' v e t m ' ' d attribnrion rneory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Corporation. Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom eXperienceS- Journal_ef_fidueefiona1 Psycnology, 11, 3-25. Weiner, B. (1982). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. In H. W. Krohne, & L. Laux (Eds.), Aghievgnent, §rress, ang Anniety (pp. 223-245). New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. 182 Weiner, B. (1984). Principles for a theory of student motivation and their application within an attributional framework. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.). WWW (Vol 1): Student Mgriynrign (pp. 15- 38). New York: Academic Press. Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion- W. 22 (4). 548-573- Weiner, B., Frieze, I. H., Kukla, A., Reed, 1., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M- (1971) W §n9§§§§_nng_£nilnrg. Morristown, NJ.: General Learning Press, 1971. Weiner, B., Heckhausen, H., Meyer, W., 8 Cook, R. (1972). Causal ascriptions and achievement behavior: A conceptual analysis of effort and reanalysis of locus Of control Ieurnal_of.£er§2nalisx_and_§osial E§¥QDQlQQYI 21. 239' “248- Weiner, B., Russell, D., & Lerman, D. (1978). Affective consequences of causal ascriptions. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), Ngw DiIQQLiQDS in W1 Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. White, Merry (1987). e at' C : A 92mmi§m§QL_LQ_§nildrgn. New York: The Free Press. Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Frieze, I. H. (1985). Children's causal attributions for success and failure in achievement settings: A meta analysis. Jnnrnn1_nr WW. 11(5) . 608-616. Yussen, S. R., & Kane, P. T. (1983). Children's ideas about intellectual ability. In R. L. Leahy (Ed.). e 's t o ' a 't (pp. 109- -133). N.Y.: Academic Press. 183 Yussen, S. R., & Kane, P. T. (1985). Children's conception of intelligence. In S. R.Yussen (Ed.), Inn Grgwtn of ggfilggrinn (pp. 207-241). New York: Academic Press. Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory- leurnal.of_£er§2nalitx. 11. 245-237.