J .l I: b “I. .3 THES! tQ‘ Rer'Y LIBRARIES 5 l 7 " 3 ll \lilllllllillil Milli“ ill 1 2930 “i ‘9 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Pence PiETOMS oi: Suaeéj and FATIU re In 521400! and Sport ~For Korean W Amer‘zan Adol—egwjts presented by I’ll/JAR L€€ has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Physical Education and Exercise Science M1453 w Major professor Date Mafia H; [9'95”- MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 '_—.._‘ . I ‘ -.— .- w * up -~ 0—7 _ _ __.-__._-._.... -——‘—-————-' "‘7 .' —v——v w-—-.— ‘_— m_ v 4 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE N RETURN BOX to romovo this ohookout horn your rooord. _TO AVOID FINES Mum on or baton dot. duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE tea 0 2 0W W221 1: 2“ MSU I-AI'I one .L ‘A‘l —" - Arr u, ir-u'iuion GHMWJ PERCEPTIONS OF SUCCESS AND FAILURE IN SCHOOL AND SPORT FOR KOREAN AND AMERICAN ADOLESCENTS By Inwha Lee AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science 1995 ABSTRACT PERCEPTIONS OF SUCCESS AND FAILURE IN SCHOOL AND SPORT FOR KOREAN AND AMERICAN ADOLESCENTS By Inwha Lee The present cross-cultural study based on Maehr and Nicholls’ (1980) notion of achievement motivation was designed to determine if Korean and American adolescents differed in terms of defining their success and failure within school and sports contexts. A two step procedure was used in this study. In Phase 1, an open-ended questionnaire was used to ask the adolescents from the two cultures to provide components of success and failure in school and sports. The results of Phase 1 was used in Phase 2 to assess sex differences within each culture as well as cross-cultural differences. Responses to the questionnaire were analyzed using factor analyses for cultural difi‘erences. In addition, one-way MANOVA procedures were employed to determine gender differences on each factor. The results revealed that there were gender differences within each culture and cross-cultural differences in perceptions of components of success and failure in school and sports contexts. These gender and cultural difl‘erences in defining success and failure were explained as resulting from some cultural factors such as socialization, education and value orientations. The present study partially supported Maehr and Nicholls’ notion of achievement motivation. v .h ‘ ‘t ’- o“. ‘ I I- l . u S..- ’0 I ACKNOWLI E) itiMENTE hvoutd like to (swim my suture appreciation to Dr Deborah L. Ed: fish 5 w Magnum-.1 and may : ".“‘ can. during, my dissertation mm but mm» Wanna! wants." ' am 134- gruts’ui I‘m 4- the ham sh: span M . 1 . “m and {or IN-M may Mums... - oriu nap and aims Insomniac Ebro .7 Hummus O! .m xvmmmoc. Di Mama t main, Dr Dennis PM“ I) Do. m. art Dr Moira U‘u for their ‘ .‘Ilblt: suggestvons and critical input The“ dfipmm Int-ammmthoMMMofhuo-t, Hm“ art-o take to thank mv (Hum graduate. studet'ts and mm but. No ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Deborah L. F eltz for her continuous encouragement and insight not only during the dissertation process, but throughout my doctoral education. I am also gratefirl for all the time she spent reviewing each chapter and for always being available to offer help and advice. I would also like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Martha Ewing, Dr. Dennis Preston, Dr. Don Harnachek, and Dr. Evelyn Oka for their valuable suggestions and critical input. The time and efl‘ort put forth by my committee members certainly improved the quality of this work. I would also like to thank my fellow graduate students and friends for their help during my years as a doctoral student. I would like to thank my best friend, Jinhee Kim for her continuous help and support throughout my program. Finally, I am grateful to my deceased father and other family members, especially my sister and brother-in-law for their never-ending encouragement, support, and love. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables Chapter I: INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE Nature of the Problem Purpose of the Study Research Questions Achievement Motivation Theory Three Theoretical Approaches McClelland’s approach Atkinson’s approach Weiner’s approach Redefinition of Achievement Motivation ............................... Cross-Cultural Variations in Achievement Behavior .............. Universal Patterns of Achievement Behavior ........................ Ability-oriented achievement behavior ...................... Task-oriented achievement behavior ......................... Social approval-oriented achievement behavior ......... The Meaning of Meaning The Concept of Meaning Relationships Among Perception, Culture and Language ...... Different Value Orientations between Korean and American Culture Perception of the self Social organization Sports Academics The Issues of Questionnaires Delimitation Limitations Basic Assumptions Chapter II: METHOD Phase] Subjects and Design Questionnaire I Translation of Questionnaires Procedure Treatment of the Data Phase 2 Subjects and Design Questionnaire II Treatment of the Data Chapter III: RESULTS Phase 1 Results Phase 2 Results Success and Failure in School Perceptual factors of success for American adolescents. Perceptual factors of success for Korean adolescents Perceptual factors of failure for American adolescents . Perceptual factors of failure for Korean adolescents ..... Success and Failure in Sports Perceptual factors of success for American adolescents . Perceptual factors of success for Korean adolescents .. Perceptual factors of failure for American adolescents . Perceptual factors of failure for Korean adolescents Chapter IV: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Discussion Cultural Comparisons Perceptions of success in school ................................. Perceptions of failure in school ................................... Perceptions of success in sports .................................. Perceptions of failure in sports .................................... Comparisons of the factors between school and sports. Gender Differences Relationship to Perceived Competence .................................... Conclusion and Implications Future Directions List of References 33 33 35 35 36 36 37 37 39 40 42 47 47 47 49 51 52 54 54 55 56 58 6 I 6 1 61 67 69 70 74 76 82 83 83 85 Appendices Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: Appendix H: Appendix 1: Appendix J: Appendix K: Appendix L: Appendix M Appendix N: Human Subject Approval Consent Form Demographic Questionnaire American Questionnaire I Korean Questionnaire I Frequency of Responses for American and Korean Adolescents American Questionnaire H Korean Questionnaire II Harter’s Questionnaire Factor Analysis for Ethnic Groups in American Sample Means and Standard Deviations for Ethnic Groups ....... Intercorrelations Among Factors ................................. Means and Standard Deviations for Gender ................. Correlation between Harter’s Perceived Competence Scores and Factors .................................. 93 94 95 96 100 105 121 125 132 134 139 140 142 8. 9. LIST OF TABLES TABLE List of Top 25 Items for American and Korean Adolescents in Rank Order List of Top 25 Items for American and Korean Adolescents in Rank Order List of Top 25 Items for American and Korean Adolescents in Rank Order List of Top 25 Items for American and Korean Adolescents in Rank Order . Rotated Factor Loadings: Factors of Success in School for Americans Rotated Factor Loadings: Factors of Success in School for Koreans ........ . Rotated Factor Loadings: Factors of Failure in School for Americans ...... Rotated Factor Loadings: Factors of Failure in School for Koreans .......... Rotated Factor Loadings: Factors of Success in Sports for Americans ...... 10. Rotated Factor Loadings: Factors of Success in Sports for Koreans ......... ll. Rotated Factor Loadings: Factors of Failure in Sports for Americans ....... 12. Rotated Factor Loadings: Factors of Failure in Sports for Koreans .......... 13. Frequency of Responses of American Males for Success in School .......... 14. Frequency of Responses of American Females for Success in School ....... 15. Frequency of Responses of Korean Males for Success in School .............. 16. Frequency of Responses of Korean Females for Success in School .......... 17. Frequency of Responses of American Males for Failure in School ........... PAGE 43 45 46 49 50 52 53 55 56 57 59 105 106 107 108 109 18. Frequency of Responses of American Females for Failure in School ........ 19. Frequency of Responses of Korean Males for Failure in School ............... 20. Frequency of Responses of Korean Females for Failure in School ............ 21. Frequency of Responses of American Males for Success in Sports ........... 22. Frequency of Responses of American Females for Success in Sports ........ 23. Frequency of Responses of Korean Males for Success in Sports .............. 24. Frequency of Responses of Korean Females for Success in Sports ........... 25. Frequency of Responses of American Males for Failure in Sports ............ 26. Frequency of Responses of American Females for Failure in Sports ......... 27. Frequency of Responses of Korean Males for Failure in Sports ................ 28. Frequency of Responses of Korean Females for Failure in Sports ............. 29. Factor Loadings of Success in School for Caucasians ............................... 30. Factor Loadings of Success in School for African-Americans ................... 31. Factor Loadings of Failure in School for Caucasians ................................. 32. Factor Loadings of Failure in School for African-Americans ..................... 33. Factor Loadings of Success in Sports for Caucasians ................................ 34. Factor Loadings of Success in Sports for African-Americans .................... 35. Factor Loadings of Failure in Sports for Caucasians ................................. 36. Factor Loadings of Failure in Sports for Afiican-Americans ..................... 37. Success and Failure in School and Sport 38. Intercorrelations among Factors for Success in School ............................ 39. Intercorrelations among Factors for Failure in School ............................. 40. Intercorrelations among Factors for Success in Sports ............................ 110 111 112 113 115 116 117 118 119 120 134 134 135 135 136 137 138 138 139 140 140 141 41. Intercorrelations among Factors for Failure in Sports .............................. 141 42. Means and SDS of Success in School for Americans ................................. 142 43. Means and SDs of Success in School for Koreans .................................... 142 44. Means and SDs of Failure in School for Americans .................................. 142 45. Means and SDs of Failure in School for Koreans ...................................... 142 46. Means and SDs of Success in Sports for Americans .................................. 143 47. Means and SDs of Success in Sports for Koreans ...................................... 143 48. Means and SDs of Failure in Sports for Americans .................................... 143 49. Means and SDs of Failure in Sports for Koreans 143 50. Correlations between Harter’s Scores and Factors of Success in School ..... 144 5]. Correlations between Harter’s Scores and Factors of Failure in School ....... 144 52. Correlations between Harter’s Scores and Factors of Success in Sports ..... 144 53. Correlations between Harter’s Scores and Factors of Failure in Sports ....... 144 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE N ure of Problem The theory of achievement motivation has consistently been an interesting topic for social scientists, psychologists and educators. Social scientists argue that achievement motivation is a significant factor in determining the course of human history, afi‘ecting not only the economic development of societies but possibly determining the rise and fall of whole civilizations (Lipset, 1963; McClelland, 1961). For many educators and sports psychologists, achievement motivation has also been an important issue because they believe that achievement behavior (e. g., persistence, choice, performance) is dependent upon one’s achievement motivation. The theory of achievement motivation has been investigated in at least three difi'erent ways. First, McClelland’s approach viewed a personal trait as a single detemrinant for achievement motivation (McClelland, 1958). Second, Atkinson and his colleagues’ approach emphasizes the interaction between personal disposition and situational factors for achievement motivation (Atkinson & Feather, 1966; Atkinson & Raynor, 1974). Third, Weiner’s attributional approach focuses on the individual’s cognitive and affective reactions to an achievement-oriented success or failure as partially determined by the causal attributions used by the person to explain the cause of the outcome (Weiner, 1974, 1979). However, these three theoretical approaches to 1 2 achievement motivation have common problems in the sense that the measures employed are gender-biased and culture specific. In addition, these theories failed to recognize the importance of people’s goals of behavior in understanding achievement behavior. To overcome the theoretical limitations, Maehr and Nicholls (1980) argued that, for cross-cultural research, there is a need for a new definition and steps to investigate cultural differences in achievement situations. They proposed that “achievement motivation should be defined in terms of its purpose or meaning for people rather than in terms of overt behavior or the characteristics of the Situation in which the behavior occurs” (p. 227). One of the best ways to understand people’s meaning or purpose in a given pattern of behavior is to start by examining their definitions of success and failure in achievement situations. According to Maehr and Nicholls (1980), success and failure are best understood if they are regarded as psychological states that are based on the individual interpretation of outcomes. Success and failure are not directly and immediately perceived but are filtered through and perceived in the light of personal goals and values (Coopersmith, 1967; Maehr & Nicholls, 1980). Therefore, an individual’s meaning of success and failure in specific domains such as academics and sports will vary depending on the person’s goals and values from culture to culture or from group to group. Maehr and Nicholls (1980) suggested two complementary approaches to define achievement motivation. The first approach searches for culture-specific conceptions of achievement (i.e., gender differences and cross-cultural differences); whereas, the second approach searches for universal goals of behavior. Both approaches are very useful for the present study because the first strategy will allow one to investigate cross-cultural 3 difi’erences and gender differences but the second one will encourage the finding of culturally common factors between the two cultures. There has been some research to support Maehr and Nicholls’ notion of achievement motivation and behavior. The studies were conducted to investigate definitions of success and failure cross-culturally. The results supported the notion that success and failure have different meanings in different cultures (Ewing, 1981; Kawano, 1992; Salili & Maehr, 1975; Triandis, Kilty, Shanmugam, Tanaka & Vassiliou, 1977). Although several studies have been conducted cross-culturally, research in this area is in its infant stage. In the educational and sport psychology literature, more research is needed to support and expand on the cultural meanings of success and failure, especially for adolescents. No study to date has examined how adolescents fi'om different cultures define success and failure, and what sources and agents they use in defining success and failure. of S Academics and sports must be important and salient domains for adolescents because they spend a lot of time in these activities in their daily life. Examining the subjective meanings of success and failure in academics and sports for American and Korean adolescent cultures is of special interest because of the considerably different value orientations and social structure in each culture. The purpose of this study was to determine if Korean and American adolescents differed in terms of defining their success and failure within school and sports contexts. The second purpose of this study was to determine if male adolescents difi‘ered fiom 4 female adolescents in terms of defining their success and failure within school and sports contexts. h s "cm The following research questions were constructed to guide this study: 1. How do Korean adolescents compare with American adolescents in their perceptions of success and failure in academics? 2. How do Korean adolescents compare with American adolescents in their perceptions of success and failure in sport? 3. How do girls compare with boys in their perceptions of success and failure in academics? 4. How do girls compare with boys in their perceptions of success and failure in sport? Wm Many research studies have employed at least one of the major theoretical approaches to study achievement motivation: McClelland’s approach, Atkinson’s approach, and Weiner’s approach. However, these approaches have limitations in both concepts and methodology because they are gender- and culture-biased. Therefore, there is a need for a new definition and new approaches to studying achievement motivation in cross-cultural research. The notion of multiple forms of achievement motivation proposed by Maehr and Nicholls (1980) appears to provide a more profitable approach to understanding the relationship between achievement motivation and behavior than either drive theory or attribution theory. Thus, the purpose of this section is to discuss three theoretical approaches and their limitations and Maehr and Nicholls’ new approaches and their benefits in cross-cultural research. Warm—chat McClelland’s approach. A child’s early social learning experiences play a significant role in creating the child’s personal trait of achievement motivation which dictates the adults’ achievement motivation. A culture—Child rearing—Personality— Achieving Society hypothesis is specifically and directly proposed by McClelland. This hypothesis emphasizes the importance of child rearing practices for societal achievement. McClelland and Winter (1969) suggested that achievement patterns set in childhood could be changed if adults put forth the effort. For the most part, however, they assumed that achievement motivation is relatively stable across situations and time and not only determines the achievement of individuals but that of societies as well. To assess personality trait or inner drive, McClelland and his colleagues (Atkinson, 1958; McClelland, 1958) developed a procedure which asked subjects to write imaginative stories to pictures-Thematic Appreception Test (TAT) cards (Atkinson, 1958). They assumed that the TAT method could measure an individual’s strength of achievement motivation. People with high need Achievement scores were likely to do their best work, be more resistant to social pressure, be more active in college or community activities and choose moderate risks. This general approach to personality has conceptual problems. First, when we weight personality as a critical variable in determining achievement behavior, other important variables such as variety of situational and contextual factors, social expectations, task definitions and social cues could be ignored (Maehr, 1974, 1978). To be specific, first, such trait characterizations focus on change attempts on the children rather than on their context (Klinger & McNelley, 1969; Maehr, 1974, 1978) so that the 6 necessity to effect social and political change can be overlooked. (Ryan, 1971; Tulkin, 1972). Second, when achievement motivation is treated as a personality trait, there is little room for obtaining information of diverse modes of achievement in different cultures. Difi‘erent cultural groups are not only likely to establish different tasks as achievement tasks, but to pursue the goals in different ways. Third, McClelland’s approach has been singularly unsuccessfirl when applied to females in Western societies because the theory has been derived from and standardized on the basis of men’s interpretations and perspectives. Am n’s approach, Unlike McClelland’s approach which focuses on personal traits, Atkinson and his colleagues emphasize the interaction of personal disposition and the situation (Atkinson & Feather, 1966; Atkinson & Raynor, 1974). Atkinson proposed that preferences for different probabilities of achieving success or avoiding failure are related to individual differences in motivation, and he developed a model to explain certain motive-related levels of aspiration phenomena. In the Atkinson model, the two components of a P variable, “tendency to approach success” and “tendency to avoid failure,” are both rooted in and directed to achievement as it occurs in a specific culture. A tendency to approach success is assumed to be adequately indicated by the fantasy- based measures of achievement motivation discussed previously; a tendency to avoid failure is presumably indicated by the Test Anxiety Questionnaire, an instrument manifestly focused on a very specific achievement behavior which can occur in certain cultural contexts. Similarly, this approach has also been criticized because of some conceptual and methodological problems. First, although some attempt has been made to incorporate 7 other variables such as locus of control (Feather, 1969) and instrumental value of the task (Raynor, 1969), this work still placed too much weight on the personality (Brawley & Roberts, 1984; Maehr, 1974; Maehr & Nicholls, 1980). Second, the task was inadequate and inappropriate for female subjects, and unidirnensional. Third, Atkinson and his colleagues failed to measure cross-cultural groups because both measures, TAT and TAQ, were limited to a specific culture. Weiner’s approach. Weiner, Frieze, Kukla, Reed, Rest and Rosenbaum (1971) proposed an attributional theory of achievement motivation which has become the basis for much of the subsequent research on achievement attributions. Attribution theory, unlike the trait approach, deals with a range of cognitive constructs such as perceived control, interpersonal evaluation, and expectancy for success and with an array of cognitively determined affects such as pride, guilt, shame, and hopelessness. The theory viewed the individual’s affective and cognitive reactions to an achievement-oriented success or failure as partially determined by the causal attributions used by the person to explain the cause of the outcome. The original Weiner et al.’s (1971) theory proposed four basic causes of achievement successes and failures: ability, efl‘ort, luck, and the ease or difficulty of the task. In spite of later research which indicated that these are only a few of the many causal explanations people make when given an opportunity to state their causal explanations in their own words (e.g., Frieze, 1975; Weiner, 1979), much of the research has continued to utilize the original four causal categories. Within this framework Weiner (1974, 1979) conceptualized a three-dimensional model with the dimensions representing locus of control (internal or external), stability 8 (stable or unstable) and controllability. Ability and effort can be viewed as internal attributions, while luck and task difficulty are external attributions. Additionally, these four causes can be classified as stable or unstable, with ability and the task being relatively stable influences, and luck and efi‘ort being unstable. The stability dimension determines a person’s expectancies for future performances; whereas, the locus of control dimension determines a person’s affect (pride or shame) associated with winning or losing. For example, an attribution to ability, a stable and internal element, would indicate both an expectancy for future success at the task because ability is a stable element and feelings of pride in the accomplishment because ability is an internal element. A third dimension of controllability is included in the causal analysis (Weiner, 1979). Controllability has to do with how much the person who is seen as the primary actor in the situation can control the causal factor operating. Thus, one has little control over ability, but a good deal of control over efi‘ort. However, this approach has also been criticized because it has problems in both concept and methodology in the sense that the model and measures are culture-specific and sex-typed in terms of the nature of “achievement” tasks (Maehr & Nicholls, 1980). Attribution theory also ignores that different behavior may represent difl‘erent goals or achievement orientations in sport settings and laboratory specific settings (Kukla, 1972, 1978; Maehr & Nicholls, 1980). Finally, the four attributions alone were not adequate because people may make many other causal explanations in achievement situations (Bukowski & Moore, 1980; Frieze, 1975; Roberts & Pascuzzi, 1979). In two cross-cultural studies, for example, Azuma (1989) and Devos (1986) suggested that, in the attribution theory, intemality is proposed to be positively associated 9 with high cognitive achievement. That is, when the locus of control tends to be internal, there is a close interrelationship between effort and achievement as well as self-esteem. In contrast, Azuma (1989) and Devos (1986) failed to find a significant relationship between a developmental tendency toward intemality and high achievement. This difference might be explained in that, in Japan, the concept measured as intemality is closely related to strictness or modesty and self-criticism in the evaluation of one’s own performance. For Japanese, the pattern of internalization occurring within a group context increases sensitivity to the feelings of others. Achievement motives exist with a strong need for group affiliation and delicate sensitivity to the feeling of others. Indeed, McCelland’s (1961) assessment of achievement themes in children’s literature found that Japan scored lower in achievement motivation than the average of the other countries assessed. (Not surprisingly, Japan was above average in affiliation motive.) Thus, it would not be surprising to learn that concepts and standard measurements of achievement motivation developed in the Western world do not adequately pick up orientations and predispositions toward achievement that in fact exist among the Japanese. This suggests that without understanding the cultural backgroud, it is not enough to identify behavioral patterns and associated attributions which define achievement motivation from Weiner’s theory. In other words, the attribution and locus of control theory are culturally specific and these are related to ethnocentrism in the research. In summary, these three theoretical approaches have some conceptual and methodological problems. The common problems are gender-bias and cultural specificity. The measures are derived from a male point of view, tasks are established that are 10 primarily male-appropriate only and interpretations for the data are fi'om a male perspective. W In criticizing previous theoretical approaches to achievement motivation which focus on ethnocentric constructions of the nature of things, Maehr and Nicholls (1980) proposed a new definition of achievement motivation and steps to examine cultural difi‘erences in achievement situations which have been conducive to cross-cultural research. Maehr (1974, 1978) assumed the existence of a universal will to achieve. Based on this assumption, Maehr established three necessary conditions for defining achievement behavior. First, achievement behavior occurs in reference to a standard of excellence which can be evaluated in terms of success and failure. A second defining condition is that the individual must in some sense be responsible for the outcome. Third, there is some level of challenge and, some sense of uncertainty regarding the outcome involved (Maehr, 1974, 1978). The purpose of this definition was to enhance the study of achievement behavior within specific situations or contexts. Based on this new definition, Maehr and Nicholls (1980) argued that identification of purpose and meaning of a given pattern of behavior must be investigated in order to understand people in their own terms as well as in terms of the purpose of their behavior. Therefore, they proposed that “achievement motivation should be defined in terms of its purpose or meaning for people rather than in terms of overt behavior or the characteristics of situations in which the behavior occurs” (p. 227). Two complementary approaches were suggested to investigate this new definition of achievement motivation. The first approach was to obtain the identification of ll “meaning of achievement and achievement behavior for any given group or for individuals within a group” (p.227). The second approach focused on “defining a class or classes of achievement behavior in terms of the meaning or goals of behavior” (p. 23 5). The first approach was designed for culture specific diversity, whereas the second approach focused on universal patterns of behavior. W The goal of the first approach was to analyze achievement motivation in terms of the subjective meaning of behavior and achievement for a group or the persons who compose that group. Maehr and Nicholls (1980) pointed out that, although this approach makes cross-cultural comparisons difficult, it is important to attempt an understanding of behavioral patterns in terms of the individuals who display it. Therefore, this approach required some means of eliciting conceptions or definitions of achievement behavior from people of different cultures. To be specific, as a first step, it was important to start by examining conceptions of success and failure across cultures. Maehr and Nicholls (1980) argued that success and failure are not concrete events but abstract and psychological states consequent on perception of attaining or not attaining goals. People’s perception of goal attainments are not concrete as they perceive objective outcomes because goal attainment implies something desirable about themselves. Thus, if there is cultural variation in the personal qualities that are seen as desirable, the goals of achievement behavior will be different in different cultures. Outcomes are experienced as success and failure depending on the perceived reasons for those outcomes. ll “meaning of achievement and achievement behavior for any given group or for individuals within a group” (p.227). The second approach focused on “defining a class or classes of achievement behavior in terms of the meaning or goals of behavior” (p. 23 5). The first approach was designed for culture specific diversity, whereas the second approach focused on universal patterns of behavior. Qreflujggal Vgg'ation in Achievement Behevier The goal of the first approach was to analyze achievement motivation in terms of the subjective meaning of behavior and achievement for a group or the persons who compose that group. Maehr and Nicholls (1980) pointed out that, although this approach makes cross-cultural comparisons difficult, it is important to attempt an understanding of behavioral patterns in terms of the individuals who display it. Therefore, this approach required some means of eliciting conceptions or definitions of achievement behavior fiom people of different cultures. To be specific, as a first step, it was important to start by examining conceptions of success and failure across cultures. Maehr and Nicholls (1980) argued that success and failure are not concrete events but abstract and psychological states consequent on perception of attaining or not attaining goals. People’s perception of goal attainments are not concrete as they perceive objective outcomes because goal attainment implies something desirable about themselves. Thus, if there is cultural variation in the personal qualities that are seen as desirable, the goals of achievement behavior will be different in different cultures. Outcomes are experienced as success and failure depending on the perceived reasons for those outcomes. 12 Maehr and Nicholls (1980) hypothesized that success and failure might have difi'erent meanings in different cultures. Several studies have supported this hypothesis. The first study was of subjective meaning of success and failure in the United States, Iran, Japan, Thailand (Osgood, Miron, & May, 1975). Using Osgood et al.’s data, Salili and Maehr (1975) investigated the meaning of a number of achievement-related concepts. Results showed that various concepts were associated with success and failure. For example, although Thailand and the United States shared the common closest concepts, ‘fi'ee will’ and ‘a choice’ to success, Thailand had other closest concepts, ‘respect’ and ‘tradition’ to success, which were not in the closest category for the United States or other cultures. Thai results implied that Thailand might difi‘er from other cultures in the degree to which success is associated with respect and tradition. In addition, the concept “punishment,” which is far from success and close to failure in Iran and Japan is not a salient feature of the definition of success and failure in the US and Thailand. Therefore, the results of this study indicated that there were cross-cultural variations in the degree to which success and failure was associated with the overt positive or negative reactions of others. The conclusion of Osgood et al.’s study (1975) was supported by other studies. Triandis et al. (1977) examined the perceived antecedents and consequents of success in the United States, Greece, India, and Japan. In this study, the subjects were asked to provide words or phrases in the following form: “If you have ( ), then you have success” and, “If you have success, then you have ( )”. The results of this study supported the idea that success has different meanings in different cultures. To be specific, the Americans see “hard work” and “ability” as most important; whereas, the 13 Greeks see “patience” and “willpower,” the Indians, “tact” and “leadership,” and the Japanese, “effort” and “willpower.” Thus, the Americans and the Japanese appeared to be similar in defining antecedents of success compared to other countries because both cultures emphasize individual effort for success. However, the Indians appeared to be difi‘erent from other cultures. They emphasize social factors that promote success as well as a number of other factors such as a huge army, leadership, and unity. Kawano (1992) also employed the same method which Triandis et al. (1977) used in order to investigate cultural differences between American and Japanese college students as well as gender differences in defining success and failure within both school and sports domains. The results supported the idea that cultural differences and sex differences did exist in perceptions of both the antecedents and consequents of success and failure in school and sports. Another important issue in cross-cultural research is what Triandis (1972) has termed a “subjective subculture.” According to Triandis, a subjective subculture is defined by attributes of the cognitive structures of groups of people. Gender is an example of a subjective subculture because girls and boys experience different stereotyped roles and values which may contribute to gender difi'erences in defining concepts such as success and failure. Indeed, parents’ and teachers’lcoaches’ expectations differ depending on a child’s gender. Being competent in sports skills is important, especially for boys (Roberts, 1978; Scanlan, 1982). Veroff (1969) suggested that comparing themselves in sporting activities may be the domain in which young boys establish their standing among peers and thereby their self-worth. Duda (1981) reported that boys preferred to succeed in sport rather than 14 classroom contexts. Except in individual competitive contexts, girls shared that preference. Maehr and Nicholls (1980) also hypothesized that success and failure might have different meanings in gender. Some studies supported their position (Ewing, 1981; Roberts & Duda, 1984). The results showed that gender difi‘erences existed in perceived ability and subjective meanings in defining success and failure in sports. Ewing (1981) found that males followed the traditional view of success being associated with “ability” and “money” which resulted in “the good life” and “pride”. On the other hand, females perceived the cause of success to be “doing your best”, “understanding”, and “fim” which resulted in “achieving a goal” and having “a good attitude.” Similar research on gender differences has not been conducted between Korean males and females. Therefore, this first approach of Maehr and Nicholls paves the way to investigate various meanings of achievement behavior between males and females within each culture as well as between American and Korean cultures. mm Pettems of Aehievement Behavior Maehr and Nicholls’ (1980) second approach involves defining achievement behavior in the light of the meaning or goals of behavior. The aim of this approach is to search for similar patterns of behavior in diverse cultures even if such behavior may vary in frequency and in importance across cultures. This is a sort of etic approach in the sense that Maehr and Nicholls attempt to investigate the hypothesis of universality in achievement behavior. To attain this purpose, Maehr and Nicholls (1980) proposed three forms of achievement behavior that present theoretically meaningful definitions of 15 achievement motivation boundaries. The three forms, based on attribution theory, consist of ability, task, and social approval oriented achievement behavior. fiility-oriented achievement behavior. The goal of ability oriented achievement behavior is to “maximize the subjective probability of attributing high ability and minimize the probability of attributing low ability to oneself’ (Maehr & Nicholls, 1980, p. 18). This definition reflects active avoidance of specific tasks or situations where one might perform poorly as well as strong approach behavior where one might perform well. According to Weiner (1972), expectations of outcome on future tasks are largely determined by attributions to ability and task difficulty which are both seen as stable and causal factors. For example, if people attribute their success to high ability on a certain task, they tend to expect that firture performance on such a task will be similarly successful. Thus, causal attributions mediate achievement behavior as they determine expectancies. Ability attributions are viewed as especially important in mediating achievement behavior (Maehr & Nicholls, 1980). Research by Nicholls (1975, 1976a, 1976b) and Sohn (I977) appeared to support this conclusion. Teek-oriented achievement behavior. This second form of achievement behavior should be distinguished from ability-oriented achievement behavior in the sense that the former emphasizes not demonstrating ability but the quality of an individual’s work. This form of achievement behavior seems to be important in explaining those individuals who do their best on the task regardless of the demonstration of their ability (Nicholls, 1972). The individual’s goal is to produce a better product, or solve a problem. Maehr and Nicholls (1980) argued that this form appears very likely to be a universal form of achievement because mastery behavior can be found among children and 16 adults. Young children who have mastery behavior are not able to make attributions of the type that attribution theory assumes adults make (Nicholls, 1978). White (1959) used Piaget’s observations to make the case that mastery behavior is present in infants and is intrinsically satisfying. In addition, this definition may also account for achievement behavior among adults who pursue achievement in more than one area. Soeial approval-orientfl achievement behavior. Social approval-oriented behavior differs from ability oriented achievement behavior in some ways. The most prominent difference is that approval motivation will consistently lead to high levels of effort. In this respect, it contrasts with ability-oriented behavior because higher levels of effort will produce attributions of lower ability. Kukla (1972, 1978) viewed ability attributions as the most important in mediating achievement afl‘ect rather than effort attributions as proposed by Weiner (1972, 1974). Thus, Maehr and Nicholls (1980) argued that “behavior directed at maximizing the chances of attributing high effort to oneself and minimizing the chances of attributing low effort to oneself is more appropriately called social-approval motivation” (p. 241). The goal of this form is to indicate virtuous intentions or personal commitment rather than ability so that lack of effort likely indicates lack of virtuous intent rather than inferior ability (Kukla, 1978; Nicholls, 1976a). Behavior directed at producing and maintaining perception of high efl‘ort which is classified as social approval motivation is certainly important in situations like school and sports that are commonly considered achievement situations. Although questions still remain as to whether these three forms of achievement behavior are really universal goals of behavior, the hypothesis of universality is very important because, if we seek only culture specific goals or elements for achievement 17 behavior, the cross-cultural research becomes ethnocentric. Thus, failure to consider universal goals of achievement behavior lead to blindness of the bigger picture in human behavior. The Mem' g pf Meaning Wm Maehr, Nicholls and other researchers have used the term ‘meaning’ but they have not explained fully what meaning is and where meaning comes from. However, to understand and interpret the definitions of success and failure, it is necessary to deal with what meaning is and how meaning can be acquired, and where meaning comes from. It is also important to discuss possible problems of translations from one language to another. The concept of meaning has been an intriguing topic for philosophers, logicians, linguists, psychologists and others. People fi’om different areas have interpreted the concept of meaning differently. Rather than attempt to review their interpretations, the author offers a definition which best meets the need of this study. Meaning is defined as “the associations we put together with a given behavior” (Ruhly, 1976). These associations are learned from our parents, relatives, friends, teachers, and acquaintances of all sorts. This definition suggests that people from different cultures or subcultures have different meanings of the associations because meanings are learned in specific contexts and culture. One reason why many psychologists and researchers are interested in subjective meanings of a concept or an event is because they believe that an individual’s or a group’s subjective meanings subsequently influence human behaviors (Osgood et al., 1975). 18 Meanings are learned and they become our personal property; they may or may not be the same for other people. We often use the same words to mean different things because words can acquire at least three types of meanings: denotative, connotative, and contexual meanings. Denotative meanings refer to the word symbol, and the object or action it is related to, e. g. the sound [dawg] with the object ‘dog’. Connotative meanings relate to the evaluative, emotional or affective feelings conjured up in the mind of the user. For example, the word, “cow” in Hindu cultures carries a connotative meaning alien to that ascribed to it in other cultures. To Hindus the cow is a sacred animal, to be protected and revered. To persons in other cultures the cow connotes a food-producing animal, to be milked until old, then to be eaten. Words can also change their meanings depending upon the contexts in which they are used. The particular meaning of a word varies with linguistic and nonlinguistic context. The nonlinguistic context refers to the conditions of utterance that may influence interpretation, for example, vocal inflection, emotional intensity, and speaker credibility. By intensifying the different words in “I love you,” three different nonlinguistic interpretations can be given that sentence when spoken in English. “I love you,” means “I and nobody else love you.” “I love you,” means “I don’t just like you, I love you.” “I love you,” means “I don’t love Bill, Sam or Joe; I love you.” The speaker’s emotional intensity offers cues on how the words can be interpreted. Therefore, the nonliguistic context can be easily misunderstood (Osborn, 1976). Words, at some basic denotative level, can be successfirlly translated because denotation is relatively fixed and stable. But connotations of words are subtly different from culture to culture and fi'om group to group. The original semantic differential test was developed to try to understand these subtle differences in the connotative meanings 19 (Snider & Osgood, 1969). Frequently, the connotative meanings are far stronger than the denotative meanings. By that we mean the emotional aspects in a particular context associated with words carry more weight in people’s minds than the direct, explicit meaning. Thus, different meanings of a word will bring about some difliculties in translating from one language to another. It may well be that we can never totally absorb or understand the world of other languages, but it is clear enough that we can obtain an adequate understanding of the words. Therefore, we can carefully conduct cross-cultural studies with good translators and refine instruments. WWW Understanding the relationships among perception, culture and language is fundamental and crucial for this cross-cultural study because, without being aware of interactions among these three components, we do not know how and where subjective meanings of success and failure come from and then we might have some difficulties in interpreting the data. How we behave in achievement situations (success and failure) is dependent upon our perceptions toward the events or achievement situations. Perception, which is the process of interpreting sensory information, is conditioned and structured by culture in such a way that we develop culturally determined behavior sets. These behavior sets influence not only which stimuli reach our awareness but also the meaning we attach to the stimuli (Samovar, Porter & Jain, 1981; Steinberg, 1982). An important phase of perception involves our giving meaning to the objects and events in our environment. Objects and events can vary considerably in their ability to elicit meaning, and the meaning extended varies according to the individual and the individual’s culture. Although 20 identification and naming is a part of meaning attribution-(often referred to as the objective part)-there also is a subjective aspect. Perceptual meaning refers to the fact that our perceptions are not single, isolated events but are an ongoing image of our immediate environment in relation to past experiences and firture expectations. Culture brought about by exposing a large group of people to approximately similar experiences relative to other cultures, often has the effect of being a unifying force in the perception of the environment. The influence of culture on perceptual processes is so pervasive that there seems to be very little argument as to what specific areas of our perceptions are and are not touched by cultural experiences. This cultural influence on the outcome of the perceptual process was demonstrated in a classic study by James Bagby. Mexican children and American children viewed, for a split-second, stereograms in which one eye was exposed to a baseball game while the other was exposed to a bullfight. In the main, the children reported seeing the scene according to their culture; Mexican children tended to see the bullfight and American children tended to see the baseball game (Bagby, 1957). The children made certain selections based on their background; they tended to see and to report that which was most familiar, expected, and culturally related, and to ignore the other. Because of these relationships, culture plays an instrumental role in determining how we interpret our world, how we judge, evaluate, make sense of, and create our social reality. The central idea of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Carroll, 1956) is that language functions not simply as a device for reporting experience, but also, and more significantly, as a way of defining experience for its users. What obviously is being suggested by this analysis is that our language and our culture work in tandem to shape our perceptions of 21 reality (Heath, 1983; Klopf & Park, 1982). In short, a culture’s language habits help to select and to define that culture’s world (Ochs, 1988; Sarnovar et al. 1981). It is obvious that our culture teaches us to name what is practical, useful, and important. We learn to name what is around us. For example, the Korean youngster growing up on a farm can name and talk about various types of rice, while the youngster growmg up on a farm in Iowa may well be able to offer ten different words that describe plows (Samovar et al., 1981). Therefore, language and culture are inseparable because they influence each other in our daily life. In summary, knowing the definition of ‘meaning’, the origin of ‘meaning’ and translation problems from one language to another are important for this cross-cultural study. The meanings are different among different groups, gender, and cultures as well as different contexts. The relationships among perception, culture and language were also introduced. Language reflects part of culture and culture influences its language. Language and culture are learned and work together to shape our perceptions of reality. Difi‘ ri n tio n Kor d Ameri C l res Specific values in a culture may be an important factor to affect the meaning of success and failure in achievement situations. To understand American and Korean adolescents’ perceptions of success and failure in academics and sports, different value orientations between the two cultures should be examined because different emphasis of the same values in each culture can result in adolescents’ different perceptions or perspectives toward same things or events. Four major value orientations (perception of the self; social organization, sports and academics) are introduced. 22 cheptien of me self. The self is a very important concept underlying the American culture. The self provides a perspective in thinking, a direction for activity, a source of motivation, a locus in decision-making and a limit to group involvement (Stewart, 1972). Because culture and personality are integrally related through the socialization process, persons from difl‘erent cultures tend to have differing perceptions of the self involving a set of beliefs, values, and attitudes concerning the role and responsibilities of the individual in the society. Two cultural patterns concerning the perception of self are individualism and self-motivation (Stewart, 1972). The American value of individualism begins at a very early age when the child is encouraged to be autonomous. Children are encouraged to make their own decisions, develop their own opinions, solve their own problems, have their own things, and in general learn to view the world from the point of view of the self. The individualism is strongly reflected in the patterns of motivation in the American culture. Americans believe in self-motivation. Individuals should set their own goals and then make up their own minds on how to pursue them (Stewart, 1972). On the other hand, collectivism and interdependence are culturally pervasive in Asian societies. Collectivism and interdependence as a world view focuses attention on maintenance of social norms and performance of social duties as defined by the ingroup and is characterized by interactions with relatively few others in long term and stable relationships (e.g., Church, 1987; Triandis, 1989). The group is viewed as the basic unit of survival (Hui, 1988). The development and maintenance of a set of common beliefs, attitudes, and practices is extolled, and the importance of cooperation with ingroup 23 members is highlighted (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Like other Asian societies, Korean children are not allowed to make their own decisions, develop their own opinions and so on until they become adults so that they are very dependent on their parents, teachers and elder family members. Koreans seem to be more concerned about how others regard them than how they regard themselves. Individualism is not allowed in Korean society. Korean society is a ‘ e”(group) society. An American refers to himself7herself as a proud “I” but a Korean either uses “We” for “I” or refers to himself/herself as a humble little being. Here, we can catch a value ‘Modesty’ in Korean society. In the East, modesty is a primary value; being humble, unassuming and not forward is prized. In the West, the opposite holds and modesty is negligible. Westerners feel that one’s achievements should be broadcast to the world and that one’s feelings should be asserted (Klopf & Park, 1982). The differences the two contrasting views of the self and the nature of being make for behavior have been systematically analyzed in a number of recent papers (Markus & Kitayama, I990; Hui, 1988). Markus and Kitayama (1991) have detailed how self- relevent cognition, emotion, and motivation are markedly divergent depending on the view of self that anchors them. For example, Japanese, Korean, and Thai respondents tend to view others as better, smarter, more social, and more in control than the self, while the reverse tends to be true for United States respondents. In the United States, respondents tend to view the self as better than others in a variety of positively valenced domains. WEE—Em Social organization refers to cultural patterns concerning social relationships among the members of a society. The most prominent factor “equality" in American society is discussed here as an example. 24 Compared to many other cultures, American culture emphasizes equality in social relationships. As discussed earlier, Americans believe that each person is a unique individual worthy of respect and capable of making autonomous choices. Consistent with this high value on individualism and human dignity, their interpersonal relations are usually egalitarian and horizontal, conducted between presumed equals (Stewart, 1972). The value of equality can be found anywhere. For example, some American children can call their parents by their first names; whereas Korean children are not permitted to call their parents or elder persons by their first names. In the Korean culture, the basic concepts of Confucian ethics govern interpersonal relations. One is always more powerful, older or lower than the other. Respect and loyalty toward someone older and higher in rank is absolute. In traditional Korean society, for respective status groups, a legally stipulated hierarchy determines patterns of life style, prestige, power, occupation, military and labor service, penalty, and even patterns of clothing and housing. Social interaction in Korea is vertical, therefore, with little concept of equality in everyday interactions (Chang, 1977; Klopf& Park, 1982). Spege, Americans put high value on sportand exercisefortheir physical and mental well-being even though a large number of them are sedentary. Recently, the United StatesWPublic Health Service (1991) outlined health goals for the nation for the year 2000. In recognition of the importance of regular exercise (Paffenbarger, Hyde, Wing, & Hsielr, 1986; Powell, Thompson, Caspersen, & Kendrick, 1987) and fitness (Blair, Kohl, Pafl‘enbarger, Clark, Cooper & Gibbons, 1989) to good health, the goals call for an increased level of regular activity among adults. In recognition of the fact that childhood risk levels are predictive of adult disease risk levels and that regular physical 25 activity in childhood can have health benefits (Sallis, Patterson, Buono, & Nader, 1988), the Public Health Service has also set activity goals for youth. Iri’r’dditiomrthegmjgity‘o‘f American parents encourage their children to participate in sportsprograms or physical ’ *2 activities. In particular, American boys areexpected—to love-and exeel inethlfiepngll boys are encouraged, often forced, to participate in physical activities or sports programs from an early age (Stitt, 1988). parents do not allow their children to be involved in sports programs because they believe that children’s participation in sports obstructs the concentration on their study. Furthermore, Korean high schools do not have the necessary equipment and facilities as well as the sports programs for the students. Academic-oriented curricula in Korean high schools do not provide the students opportunities or free time to be involved in sports or other physical activities (Kang, 1987; Yoon, 1993). Therefore, compared to American adolescents, only a few highly talented Korean adolescents participate in sports programs. Aggemr emies , {The Korean educational system is honorable for its emphasis on a strong academic orientation and for the fact that its general education developsgroup orientations characterized by homogeneity and inclusiveness (Kim, 1991). Everyetudent wants to go to college in Korea because Korean secietyputs high emphasis on academics. Most of the Korean parents are ready for any costs for their children’s education. The K‘Etéfisdjcsfls’nalsystem pushes. children to .deyotslonahpursta SW): {0. 13:925.? f“ 00W. Entering college in Korea is very competitiveendthe college entrance exarninetion is considered to be the gate for future success. In addition, the name of the college rtself rs sometimes considered as a good indicator of personal ability, so 26 mésnfimhflhqusttgaerinmme .‘best’. colleges Because of the stiff camp: IWQEfl‘Qmflsse themajofity. of. stadcnts are engage? in .SUPPITPIEPPF‘F‘? @9919? tuturing-whiehis held afier the regular school day. Success in school is synonymous with success in life and social status. There is no doubt that this educational process increases pressure on the children’s lives (Han, 1991). However, American children do not appear to get that much intense pressure on their academic achievements from their parents or society. The concepts of ability and effort have different degrees of emphasis fi'om social and educational contexts in each country (Holloway, Kashiwagi, Hess, & Azuma, 1986). Some studies revealed that Asian mothers ranked effort as the most important factor in their children’s success. Their American counterparts, however, felt innate ability was the primary influence on achievement, leading researchers to conclude that parents in the US. are less likely to stress hard work. Holloway et al. (1986) studied fifih— and sixth-grade children and their mothers in the United States and Japan and found that American children placed greater emphasis on lack of ability than any other reason to explain low performance in mathematics; whereas, Japanese children perceived lack of effort as a primary factor for low performance. In Japan, mothers focused on lack of effort. Similar results have been reported by other researchers (Stevenson, Lee & Stigler, 1986). Korean parents and teachers give feedback to adolescents with regard to adolescents’ efi‘ort. They frequently use famous axioms related to effort to encourge ” “ Korean adolescents; “elfort is mother of success, a genius consists of 1% talent and 99% efi‘ort,” and so on. Korean and certain other cultures cultivate an “effort” model of 27 success and failure. Koreans believe that assiduous extended effort grabs you the diamond of learning, and ability gaps are surmounted by increasing effort. In summary, cultural value differences were discussed in several major areas (the perception of self, social organization, sports and academics). Each culture has difl'erent emphases and views of cultural values, beliefs and attitudes which affect people’s perceptions and thoughts. Those different cultural factors are also reflected in their own languages. Therefore, the researcher assumes that the culturally different weights of values will play a significant role in how Korean and American adolescents define success and failure in school and sports. The 1mg ef Qeestionnairee As stated previously, because of the various influences (e. g., individuals, cultures and subjective subcultures) that contribute to meanings of achievement behaviors, there is a need to study how children from difi‘erent cultures and subjective subcultures select and process these influences in defining the concepts such as success and failure in achievement situations. Triandis (1972) has developed a concept and methodology for investigating the influence that a culture and subjective subculture has on its members’ ways of perceiving certain beliefs, attitudes, and values. In studying subjective cultures, Triandis selected 20 concepts that were universal; for example, “progress,” “success,” or “anger.” The subjects were asked to provide antecedents and consequents for each concept. For example, the antecedents of “progress” in the four cultures were significantly different. The Americans chose cooperation and foresight, the Greeks cooperation and help from others, the Indians honesty, and the Japanese foresight and 28 honesty. The results of this study revealed that there were cultural differences in defining antecedents of “progress.” In the present study, the concept of subjective culture and subculture by Triandis (1972) was employed. In the Phase 1 study, Korean and American adolescents were asked to describe what it takes to have success and failure within school and sports contexts. These questions were open-ended questions. For example, respondents were asked to “make a list of everything you can think of about yourself which causes you to feel that you can do well in your school subjects.” The author provided 20 blanks under each question. This questionnaire is different from the antecedent/consequent approach that Triandis et al. (1977) employed for their study. Triandis et al.’s questionnaire took the form of: “If you have ( ), then you have success.” The Triandis format limits subjects’ free thought processes in the course of selecting words because subjects are limited to providing only nouns or phrases in the blank space. However, the open-ended questionnaire for this study is grammar-free because it allows subjects to fill the blanks with nouns, adjectives, verbs and even sentences. Besides, in Korean language, one cannot say “If I have effort, then I have success,” because the noun ‘eifort’ cannot be used with the verb ‘have’. In other words, the noun ‘efi’ort’ is used with other verbs ‘do’ or ‘is’ grammatically. The Triandis approach may bring about problems of translations. Therefore, the questionnaire for the present study appears to be more effective for this kind of cross-cultural research in that the questionnaire is more language-free titan Triandis’ questionnaire. For Phase 2 of the study, the semantic differential technique of Seligrnan, Tucker, and Lambert (1972) was employed with some modification. Seligrnan et al. and other 29 linguists used a modified version of the original semantic differential technique developed by Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957) in order to explore teachers’ linguistic attitudes. Osgood et al. (1957) developed a semantic differential procedure to measure the meaning of a psychological construct or object for an individual. The respondent is asked to rate a given concept (such as “ e”) on a series of 7-point bipolar scales (such as “good—bad”). Tanaka, Oyama, and Osgood (1963) constructed standard multilingual semantic differentials and analyzed such data cubes in more than 20 language/culture communities. In this continuing extensive cross-cultural work, each language/culture community provides an independent replication of the original studies done in the United States. They have found that despite variations in the kinds of subjects used, three salient, orthogonal factors keep appearing: an evaluative factor (represented by scales like “good- bad” or “honest-dishonest”), a potency factor (represented by scales like “strong-weak” or “hard-soft” ), and an activity factor (represented by scales like “active-passive” or “fast- slow”). Thus they have empirically demonstrated that this basic, evaluation-potency- activity framework, or the structure of semantic spaces in linguistic terminology, is a cultural universal that is present despite obvious differences in language and culture. Multilingual semantic differentials may tap the general but implicit evaluative framework in which people experience, perceive, and judge various kinds of cognitive events in different subjective cultures. Seligrnan et al. (1972) studied the manner in which teachers form attitudes concerning children. A variety of independent variables-photographs, speech samples, drawings, and compositions fiom third grade boys-were examined for their role in attitude 30 formation. Each of the samples was then evaluated by student-teachers using a set of seven-point semantic difl‘erential scales (e.g., “ pronunciation is : inarticulate-articulate”). Analysis of the scores on each rating scale revealed that those children who were rated as sounding intelligent also were rated significantly more favorably on other dimensions such 9’ 66 as being “fiiendlier,” “happier, more enthusiastic,” and so on. However, for this study, the semantic differential technique which some linguists used was modified because the author established both positive and negative elements- ‘success’ and ‘failure’ which are opposite concepts. The subjects were asked to rate a given word/phrase on a 7-point scale of (very important) to (least important), instead of ( rating a given concept on a 7-point bipolar scale (such as “good-bad” ). For example, the subjects were given a question: “How important are the following things in making you feel that you can do well in your school subjects? Please rate each one on a scale of 1 (very important) to 7 (least important)” Therefore, this modification allows the researcher to introduce single elements, pairing the degree to which such elements are important in the separated concepts ‘success’ and ‘failure’. The rationale for this is that the author had no preconception that the elements which play an important role in promoting ‘success’ would simply be those whose absense guaranteed ‘failure’ and vice- versa. As previous findings suggested, because definitions of success and failure are culture specific, a modified semantic differential techique will get at the subtle groupings of context and association, factors which make up the bigger picture of ‘meaning’ in achievement situations. The emerged factors for American and Korean adolescents’ cultures will be interpreted and understood more clearly by examining the emphasis of 31 certain values in each culture because people fi'om different cultures have different interests or purposes in each domain or each task. D limitatien The generalizability of the results of this research will be limited to high school adolescents in certain areas of America and Korea. To be specific, the findings of this research can be generalized to high school adolescents in the Kwangju metropolitan area in Korea and the Detroit metropolitan and Lansing areas in America. Limitep'ens In many research studies, there are usually some limitations in design, process, findings, and interpretation. This particular study is no exception. There were externally imposed restrictions, such as prior approval fi'om the local Boards of Education in America regarding the data-collection procedures. In addition, due to some strict restrictions for most of the inner city high schools, only three volunteer high schools were involved in this study in the Lansing and Detroit areas. There was a time constraint in each stage of this research and the dissertation. There was also another constraint caused by a single researcher, in the sense that the data analysis was confined to this writer’s “solo” perspective. Furthermore, there was no means to validate the genuine or “true” answers given by each student to each item. For example, many American students did not take the questionnaire seriously. They played with the questionnaire. They marked the same number to all items. In the last part of the Phase 2 questionnaire, Harter’s perceived competence questionnaire could not hold American students’ interest. A lot of students did not even read the instructions. They marked both sides of the questionnaire even 32 though the researcher and their teachers explained how to complete the questionnaire. Thus, the researcher eliminated the erroneous data and obtained additional data from other schools that were completed correctly. Apart from the general questionnaire and Harter’s questionnaire, 100 items from four questions are enough to make impatient American students feel bored. Making the Phase 2 questionnaire shorter is one possible remedy to obtain more serious and true answers fi'om American students. Lastly, this study was limited in the direct cross-cultural comparisons that could be made because of its design. Korean and American adolescents chose difl‘erent words to define the meanings of success and failure. Thus, their Phase 2 questionnaires were difl‘erent from each other and could not be directly compared. Basic Aseumptions For the purpose of this study, the following assumptions must be made; first that participants understood the questionnaire and were willing and able to provide their causes of success and failure in both school and sports contexts; second, that the intent of the questionnaire was not changed in translation; and third, that the subjects’ responses are their own and not tainted by coaches/teachers or a researcher. 33 CHAPTER II METHOD This studyattempted to discover consistencies and inconsistencies in success and failure definitions that may exist between two different cultures as well as between males and females. Triandis (1972) refers to a consistency as “pancultural” and to inconsistency as a categorized element that differentiates one subjective subculture from another. The methodology to collect these data consisted of two phases. The first phase used an open- ended questionnaire format to gather components of success and failure for American and Korean adolescents. The second phase used a closed—ended questionnaire format, using the most frequent responses obtained in Phase 1 as forced choices in Phase 2. PM Wye—flan The subjects involved in this study were 200 Korean high school students (M= 16.41 yrs., SI_)= .77) and 200 American high school students (M=l6.36 yrs., S_D= .93) fiom Grades 10 through 12. The Korean (100 males and 100 females) students were drawn from two high schools in the Kwangju metropolitan area. The American students (100 males and 100 females) were obtained from two high schools in the Lansing area. All subjects were volunteers. All Korean subjects shared the same ethnic background while American subjects consisted of 77% Caucasians, 11% Afiican-Americans and 12% others (Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and mixed ethnicity). 34 Only 30% of Korean students had sport experiences in the past year; whereas, 72% of American students had sport experiences. Eighteen percent of the Korean girls reported being involved in sports; whereas, 63% of American girls were involved. F orty- two percent of Korean boys had previous sport experiences whereas 81% of American boys had previous sport experience. Among the boys and girls who indicated they had previous sport experience, 80% of the American boys and 59% of the American girls participated in Varsity or Junior-Varsity levels; whereas, 96% of the Korean boys and 90% of the Korean girls who had previous sport experience participated in intramural or unorganized levels of sport. The most popular sports were basketball (40%) for Korean boys, badminton (10%) for Korean girls, basketball (45%) and football (3 0%) for American boys, and tennis (20%) for American girls. For the academic standings in the class, 30% of American students reported that they belonged to the top 1/3 of the class, 64% of subjects reported they belonged to the middle 1/3 of the class, and 6% of subjects reported they belonged to the bottom 1/3 of the class. For Korean subjects, 31% reported that they belonged to the top 1/3 of the class, 41% reported they belonged to the middle 1/3 of the class, and 28% reported they belonged to the bottom 1/3 of the class. For extracurricular activities, 85% of American subjects were involved in extracurricular activities spending an average of 3 hours per day; whereas, 35% of Korean students were involved in extracurricular activities spending an average of one hour per day. 35 W An open-ended questionnaire was prepared to obtain components of success and failure in academics and in sports. As mentioned earlier, the instrument used was different fi'om Triandis et al. ’3 questionnaire in terms of format. The open-ended questionnaire asked subjects to supply many components of success and failure in the areas of academics and in sport. The following four questions were asked: (a) Make a list of everything you can think of about yourself which causes you to feel that you can do well in your school subjects, (b) Make a list of everything you can think of about yourself which causes you to feel that you would do badly in your school subjects, (c) Make a list of everything you can think of about yourself which causes you to feel that you can do well in sports, (d) Make a list of everything you can think of about yourself which causes you to feel that you would do badly in sports. The author, then, provided 20 blanks which allowed the subjects to write down as many responses as possible. (See Appendices D and E for the complete questionnaire.) In addition to the open-ended questionnaire, subjects completed a demographic questionnaire (See Appendix C). This questionnaire was designed to ask general information that may affect the adolescents’ definitions of success and failure in acadenrics and sports such as gender, past experiences in sport, the hours of extracurricular activities per day, and academic achievement in class. Temletjen ef Qeegiennaires In order to mininrize the language bias, the English version of the questionnaires was translated into Korean by the author and retranslated into English by a Korean faculty member to test the accuracy of the translation. Thus, the final versions of translation for 36 the questionnaires which were approved by the author and the Korean faculty member were used. Mm Prior to the collection of any data, the approval of human subjects was obtained from Michigan State University (See Appendix A). The consent procedure consisted of obtaining the consents of the high schools in America and in Korea where subjects were obtained. To be specific, permission was obtained from the high school principals. The consents were also obtained fi'om the classroom teachers following an explanation of the purpose and the methods of the study (See Appendix B). Adolescents were administered the questionnaire in a classroom setting in their grade level groups. The researcher gave a short verbal instruction and told the adolescents to work individually on the questionnaires. The instructions informed participants of their responsibility to provide as many responses as possible for each of the questions on the questionnaire. Participants were also informed that it was not a test of intelligence and that the results would only be reported as group findings. Further, each questionnaire had the same instructions printed on the test. The author was present to administer all of the questionnaires and to answer questions. r f D The responses fi'om open-ended questions were tabulated by frequency of responses. First, the data were tabulated as to the total number of different responses for the components of success and failure. The data were categorized into responses of American and Korean adolescents respectively. Within each culture, the data were also categorized into female and male responses separately. A list of responses for each of the 37 four questions (components of success in academics, components of failure in academics, components of success in sport, components of failure in sport) were completed and responses were listed in descending order fiom most frequent to least fi'equent. Two frequency tables for male and female responses were completed separately in each culture (See Appendix F). The 25 most fiequent responses chosen from male or female fiequency tables were used to construct two culture-specific questionnaires used in Phase 2. To be specific, from each of the male and female fiequency in each culture tables, the top 15 responses in that culture were chosen to make the Phase 2 questionnaire. Because there were some common responses to both sexes, 30 responses reduced to around 20 different responses. Thus about five more responses were needed to make 25 responses. These five responses were selected fi'om the remaining high ranking responses from both male and female frequency tables or interesting responses regardless of frequencies. The number of items chosen (25) was based on the perceived tolerance and attention span of adolescents for completing this type of questionnaire. After the data from Phase 1 were tabulated, then the most fi'equent responses were placed into a closed-ended questionnaire to be used in Phase 2 of this study. The 25 most frequent responses from each of the four categories (success/failure in school and success! failure in sports) for each culture were placed into the Phase 2 questionnaires which asked participants to rate the degree of importance of each item. P_has_ez Sphjfits gee @ng The second phase of this study formally tested the difi’erences that may exist between difi‘erent cultural groups’, and different genders’, definitions of success and 38 failure. Subjects were drawn fi'om the Lansing and the Detroit areas in America and the inner city of Kwangju metropolitan area in Korea. The new subjects for Phase 2 were 200' Korean (M=16.5 yrs., S_D= .63) and 200 American (M=16.23 yrs., S_D=].0) high school students fi'om Grades 10 through 12. The author obtained equal numbers of male and female adolescents. All subjects were volunteers. All Korean subjects consisted of the same race while American subjects consisted of 43.5% Caucasian, 41.5% Afiican— American and 16% others (Asian, Hispanic, Native American, other mixed ethnicity). Sixty-six percent of American students had previous experiences in sports; whereas, only 30% of Korean students had participated in sport during the past year. Among the 66% of American students who experienced sports in the past year, 71% of the boys and 80% of the girls participated in Junior-Varsity or Varsity levels of sport. Among the 30% of Korean students who experienced sports in the past year, 90% of the boys and 88% of the girls participated in intramural or unorganized levels of sport. The most popular sports were basketball (46%) for Korean boys, track (50%) for Korean girls, basketball (40%) and football (25%) for American boys, and volleyball (18%) for American girls. For the academic standings in the class, 41.5% of American students reported that they belonged to the top 1/3 of the class, 52.5% of subjects reported they belonged to the middle 1/3 of the class, and 6 % of the subjects reported they belonged to the bottom 1/3 of the class. For Korean subjects, 30 % reported that they belonged to the top 1/3 of the class, 46.5 % reported they belonged to the middle 1/3 of the class, and 20.5 % reported they belonged to the bottom 1/3 of the class, and 3% did not answer. 39 Seventy-nine percent of American subjects were involved in extracurricular activities by spending on average 3 hours per day but 42.5 % of Korean students were involved in extracurricular activities spending on average one and a half hours per day. W In this Questionnaire (Appendices G and H), the response categories formed the basis for constructing the Component Questionnaire which was employed in order to examine sex difi‘erences in each culture, as well as cross-cultural difi‘erences in the definitions of success and failure in academics and sports. The questions for success and failure were the same four questions as used in Phase 1, except that the participants were forced to rate the degree of importance for each item on a 7-point scale fiom very important to least important. To be specific, subjects were asked to mark for each of the four questions the degree of importance for each of the 25 responses: (a) How important are the following things in making you feel that you can do well in your school subjects. Please rate each one on a scale of 1 (very important) to 7 (least important), (b) How important are the following things in making you feel that you would do badly in your school subjects, (c) How important are the following things in making you feel that you can do well in sports, ((1) How important are the following things in making you feel that you would do badly in sports? In addition, the same demographic questionnaire used in the Phase 1 study was administered to gather general information fi'om the participants. Harter’s (1985) percieved competence questionnaire was also adrrrinistered to assess the participants’ perceived competence scores. Harter’s questionnaire, including eight domains, consists of 45 items but in this study only three domains (academic, athletic, global self-worth) were 40 used. This shortened questionnaire consisted of 15 items (See Appendix I). The subjects were asked to decide which kind of teenagers were most like them and then decide whether the statement was only sort of true or really true for them. Thus, the subjects were supposed to check one response for each item. Treetmm ef Data Due to the heterogeneity in ethnicity in the American sample (43.5% Caucasian, 41.5% Afiican American, 16% other), preliminary factor analyses were conducted to determine if unique factors occurred between Caucasian and Afiican—American adolescents. Results indicated that essentially no differences were found in the factor structures between these two groups. Thus, the groups were combined to exarrrine the factor structures for the American sample. Results of these factor analyses are contained in Appendix J. In addition, MAN OVAs were conducted on the factors generated for the American sample to compare mean differences between these two ethnicities and no difi’erences were found except for one factor (low effort) in the area of failure in school. This was only one factor difference out of eight factors, thus the two ethnicities were also combined when examining gender differences. These results are also contained in Appendix K. A factor analytic method was used to compare responses between American and Korean cultures. The subjects’ responses to the four questions were analyzed separately by question. Within each question, responses were also analyzed separately by culture. Thus, eight factor analyses were conducted using Varimax Rotation Technique. Varimax rotation is most commonly used in factor analysis because it allows for discussion of a person’s score on one factor without having to take into account his or her scores on the 41 other factors. The items which loaded over .40 were retained for a factor. Only factors which contained at least three variables and had Eigenvalues greater than 1 were reported. The rationale for using this criterion was based on Streiner’s (1994) argument that retaining factors with less than an eigenvalue of 1 and fewer than three items results in a greater probability of retaining too many factors. This would be too many “in the sense that, if the study were replicated with a new group of subjects, the first few retained factors may be the same both times, but the weaker ones would likely difi‘er from one replication to the next” (p. 63). A commonly used measure of reliability, Cronbach alpha, was used to assess internal consitency of the construct indicators, depicting the degree to which they “indicate” the common latent (unobserved) consistency. A commonly used threshold value for acceptable reliability is .70 (Hair, Anderson, Tatharn & Black, 1992). One way multivariate analysis of variance (MAN OVA) tests were used to determine gender differences among the raw factor scores. The F-statistic used is an approximation based on Wilks’s criterion. Discrirrrinant analysis was also used to examine each factor’s contribution to gender differences. In addition, Pearson correlation coefiicients were used to investigate the correlations between Harter’s perceived competence scores and each factor-group scores. These results are included in Appendix N. 42 CHAPTER HI RESULTS This chapter is divided into two major sections. The first section deals with results of Phase 1 relating to the overall responses of the subjects, as well as differences between responses of the Korean and American adolescents and between male and female adolescents. The second section deals with the results of Phase 2 which are reported in terms of (a) perceptions of success and failure in school for American boys and girls, (b) perceptions of success and failure in school for Korean girls and boys, (c) perceptions of success and failure in sports for American girls and boys, and (d) perceptions of success and failure in sports for Korean boys and girls. Phase 1 Results As I mentioned in Chapter 2, responses of the subjects were tabulated in descending order in frequency tables for boys and girls separately. Among those responses, 25 top ranking responses were selected from boys’ and girls’ fiequency tables. Thus, each question consisted of 25 items for Phase 2. Twenty-five items for each question are listed in the following tables. Table 1 W m Frequencies Kerems F requencieL M F M F Study 36 33 Preview and review 42 50 Smart 15 29 Effort 32 34 Good teachers 12 17 Teachers 7 55 Friends 18 10 Attention in class 50 0 Attention in class 14 13 Reduce sleeping 25 14 Do homework 16 11 Concentration 21 16 Self-confidence 14 8 Friends 14 21 Interest of subjects 0 16 Health 12 11 Motivation 0 15 Surroundings 12 19 Concentration 0 15 No TV and nintendo games 14 12 Good grades 4 1 1 Increase studying hours 13 8 Outgoing 2 11 Classroom atmosphere 0 19 Family support 5 8 Parents’ concern 0 19 Play sports 8 4 School facilities 6 12 Fun 1 11 Smart 0 18 Happy 0 10 No push & expectation 0 17 Determination 0 10 No distracting thoughts 9 8 Parents 0 10 Rest with music 3 13 Think O 9 Tutoring O 16 Sleep 7 2 Good mood 0 13 Like to learn 4 3 Time management 13 0 Use time effectively 6 0 Study for oneself 10 0 Good books 5 0 Follow plans 9 0 Try 5 O Regtlar life hebits 8 O Table 2 ' fT 251mfrAmri Kr Adl ntsin rr Amerim F requeneies Koreans Frequencies M F M F Do not study 30 9 Friends 40 39 Teachers 19 18 Sleep 3 1 45 Lose interest 23 10 Distracting thoughts 22 40 Skip classes 9 12 Teachers’ poor ability 11 50 Laziness 6 8 Lack of effort 19 35 Talk too much 5 9 TV and video 25 25 Low self-esteem 4 9 Surroundings 28 14 Procrastinate 3 9 Boy/ girl fiiends 27 13 Too much work to do 5 7 Lack of concentration 12 24 Friends 5 6 Lack of will 20 16 No attention in class 5 5 No attention in class 13 22 Stress 0 10 Push & expectation 6 21 Lack of time 8 O Laziness 5 19 Do not do homework O 8 School & home atmosphere 0 23 Do not care 0 8 Billiards 23 0 Do not sleep 5 3 Nintendo games 21 0 Lack of understanding 3 4 Personality 4 16 Social life 3 4 Stress of college entrance 5 15 Drugs 7 0 Health 12 5 Tired O 7 Class structure 0 16 Distracted 2 4 Not smart O 15 Bad attitude 0 5 Too much homework 13 O Sickness O 5 Chattering 2 11 Problems at home 0 5 Smoking 10 0 Wits s 0 We; 9 o 45 Table 3 Lig of Top 25 items for American and Korean adolescen_ts in Ra_n_k Order Ame eggs Frequeneies Korea_p§ Frequenciesfi M F M F Practice 34 25 Regular exercise 36 28 Athletic ability 13 17 Available time 13 37 Attitude 12 16 Effort 25 23 Good coaches 15 4 Practice 27 20 Team work 0 15 Athletic ability 14 31 Like sports 10 4 Facilities 15 25 Work hard 3 1 1 Equipment 7 31 Participation 0 12 Economic condition 3 30 Good people 11 0 Interest 11 21 Strong 11 O Taller 4 22 Self-esteem 10 0 Increase PE class 11 12 Speed 6 4 Lose weight 4 17 Motivation 2 8 Nutrition 10 10 Confidence 0 9 Basic training 14 4 Physical fitness 3 6 Good clothes 0 17 Fun 2 7 People to play with O 17 Do my best 0 8 Teachers’ guide 4 13 Outgoing O 8 Active participation 6 10 Smart 7 0 Basic knowledge 13 0 Good at sports 0 7 Parents’ support 6 6 Competitive 1 6 Diligence 1 1 1 Winning O 6 Health 0 10 Taller 3 2 Confidence 1 8 Dedicated 0 5 Will 6 0 W 4 O Medeling good player 4 O Table 4 Li f T 25 I for Am ' an Kor Ad 1 sin Order Americana Hm Kareem F macaw—i M F M F No practice 20 17 No available time 27 70 Bad coaches 17 20 Lack of facilities 14 33 Bad attitude 7 25 Lack of athletic ability 13 32 Weak 8 0 Stress fiom study 14 23 No interest 3 l6 Hate sports 3 32 Injury 1 14 Physical condition(short) 13 17 No union 6 8 Lack of equipment 0 25 Do not play sports 0 13 Tired 0 20 Friends 10 3 Lack of flexibility O 18 laziness 0 10 Social despise of sports 0 18 Temper O 9 Poor health 15 2 Low self-esteem 0 9 No practice 7 9 Bad loser 0 9 Laziness 3 13 Fatigue 0 9 Lack of interest 7 7 Too competitive 1 5 Luck of PE class 2 12 Drug 5 0 Fat 0 13 Stupid practice 5 0 Parents’ objection O 12 Bad places to play 5 0 Too hard to play 0 9 No weightlifting 4 0 Fear of injury 4 3 Out of shape 4 0 Lack of will 7 3 Do not care 4 0 Poor environment 5 0 Bad mood O 4 Long school hours 3 2 Smoking 3 O No money 3 0 De not know rules 3 0 No instructor 3 O In summary, 25 top ranking responses for each culture were selected from many responses which were tabulated in descending order in frequency tables. Those 25 items were explained more thoroughly through an additioanal questionnaire for Phase 2 study. The responses to the degree of importance on 7-point scales were subjected to factor analysis and presented in Phase 2 results. 47 P 2R lt Factor analysis was used to analyze subjects’ responses to the degree of importance for each item. Four factor analyses were conducted for each culture with respect to the questions in acadenrics and in sports for a total of eight. The author conducted separate factor analyses for each culture because Phase 1 data were collected separately with no opportunity for convergence. Varimax rotation was employed for factor anlayses. The table of intercorrelations among factors are also contained in Appendix L. MANOVAs were used to determine if there were any gender difl’erences among the factor scores within each culture. Subjects’ mean average of the raw scores on a factor was used in MANOVA tests. The results of the investigation in this section were reported in the following order. 1. Perceptual factors of success in school for American Adolescents 2. Perceptual factors of success in school for Korean Adolescents 3. Perceptual factors of failure in school for American adolescents 4. Perceptual factors of failure in school for Korean adolescents The exact same procedure in reporting the results for perceptual factors of success and failure in sports was followed. u s Fail e in Sch 1 Pereeptpel feeters pf grcceee fer Amm’eg edelescents. For American adolescents, a factor analysis of the 25 items regarding the importance of each in making them feel that they can do well in their school subjects revealed three factors. The factor solution accounted for 37% of the total variance (see Table 5). The first factor labeled “efi‘ort” contained four items (do homework, attention in class, study, and good grades), 48 and accounted for 25.3% of the total variance. The second factor appeared to measure American students’ perception of “social competence” and consisted of four items (fiiends, fun, outgoing, and play sports), and explained 7.6% of total variance. The third factor named “positive attitude/affect” contained three items (use time efi‘ectively, interest of subjects, and happy), and accounted for 4.1% of the total variance. A one-way MAN OVA procedure was used to test for gender differences among the factors. The results indicated a significant overall multivariate effect (Wilks’ =.93, F_ [3,196] = 5.19, p<.002). Discriminant analysis revealed that effort (Standard Discriminant Funtion Analysis, SDF C = .54) and social competence (SDF C = -.79) contributed most to the difference between the two groups. Girls thought effort was more important than boys did, but boys thought social competence was more important than girls did. Mean scores and Sl_)s for gender are listed in Table 42 in Appendix M. F ollow-up univariate E tests indicated statistically significant differences on effort and social competence (effort ES=.34; social competence ES=.36; positive attitude/affect ES =.20). A Pearson correlation coefficient test was used to determine if there were any relationships between perceived competence scores (Academic and Global) on Harter’s questionnaire and each factor. The results indicated no statistically signifcant correlations among those variables. 49 Table 5 WWW Item no. F rl ' Fa or M I II III M SD FactorI “Efi‘ort” 1.90 .84 8 Do homework .73 -.09 .13 6 Attention in class .59 .01 .19 1 Study .58 .03 .03 10 Good grades .45 .06 —.02 Factor 11 “Social competence” 3.24 1.25 11 Friends .01 .70 .01 7 Fun .12 .62 .09 9 Outgoing .09 .54 .18 14 Play sports .04 .50 -.11 Factor III “Positive attitude/affect” 2.32 .98 18 Use time effectively .35 -.09 .65 17 Interest of subjects -.07 .23 .49 19 Happy .09 .36 .45 Total Variance -Per factor 25.3 7.6 4.1 -Cumulative 25.3 32.9 37 Eigen Value 6.3 1.9 1.01 Qeeflicieat Alpha .72 .67 .62 cheptual faetors of success for Korea adolescents. For Korean adolescents, a factor analysis of their top 25 items revealed four factors which explained 30.3% of the total variance (Table 6). The first factor labeled “effort” contained four items (attention in class, efl‘ort, study for oneself, and preview and review), accounting for 13.2% of the total variance. The second factor labeled “positive attitude/affect” included three items (no distracting thoughts, reduce sleeping, and good mood), and accounted for 7.1% of the total variance. The third factor named “good climate” consisted of three items (confidence, friends, and classroom atmosphere), and explained 5.7% of the total variance. The fourth factor appeared to measure Korean adolescents’ perception of “constructive skills” which contained three items (increase studying hours, concentration, and time management), and accounted for 4.3% of the total variance. Item no. Factor loadings I II III IV Factor I “Efl‘ort” 3 Attention in class 4 Efl‘ort 16 Study for oneself 1 Preview and review Factor 11 “Good attitude” 20 No distracting thoughts 1] Reduce sleeping 19 Good mood Factor 11] “Good climate” 24 Confidence 5 Friends 15 Classroom atmosphere Factor IV “Constructive skills 10 Increase studying hours 12 Concentration 8 Time management Total Variance -Per Factor -Cumulative Eigen Value Coefficient Alpha .75 .03 .05 .Ol .62 .18 .08 .10 .54 .ll .04 -.01 .48 -.08 -.07 .08 .21 .61 -.06 -.O3 -.01 .59 .07 .04 .03 .56 .18 .01 -.07 -.05 .76 .05 .03 .06 .61 -.02 .09 .25 .44 -.02 .06 .16 .04 .88 .10 -.21 -.08 .47 .17 -.05 .06 .43 13.2 7.1 5.7 4.3 13.2 20.3 26.0 30.3 3.29 1.77 1.43 1.07 .67 .60 .58 .64 Factor Mega M SD 1.76 .90 1.88 .91 3.04 1.47 3.90 1.47 A one-way MANOVA procedure was used to test for gender difl‘erences among the factors. The results indicated a significant overall multivariate effect (W ilks’ = .90, F [4,195] = 5.46, p< .001). Discriminant analysis revealed that effort (SDFC = .73) and constructive skills (SDF C = .55) contributed most to the difl‘erences between male and female groups. Girls thought that efi‘ort and constructive skills were more important than did boys. Mean scores and 893 are listed in Table 43 in Appendix M. Follow-up univariate E tests indicated statistically significant differences on effort and constructive skills (effort _E_S =.50; good attitude _E_S_=. 12; good climate E_S = .08; constructive skills ES=.42). 51 A Pearson correlation coefficient test was used to determine if there were any correlations between perceived competence scores (Academic and Global) on Harter’s questionnaire and each factor-group scores. The results revealed that there were no significant relationships among those variables. Perceptual factors of failure for American adolescents. Factor analysis for American adolescents regarding the importance of the 25 items that make them feel they would do badly in their school subjects revealed only one factor which accounted for 39.6% of the total variance (Table 7). This one factor appeared to measure American adolescents’ perception of their “low effort” and contained 10 items (laziness, bad study habits, no attention in class, do not do homework, procrastinate, lack of time, talk too much, lose interest, too much work to do, and tired). A one-way AN OVA was used to examine any gender differences on the factor scores. The result indicated that there was no significant gender difi‘erences on the single factor (F [1, 198]=2.71, p>.05). Means and standard deviations are listed in Table 44 in Appendix M. A correlation coefficient test was conducted to test correlations between Harter’s perceived competence scores (Academic and Global) and the factor scores. No significant correlations were found among the variables. 52 Table 7 Retateg Faetor Leadings: F acters pf Failure in School for Amgjean Adolescents Item no. F ct r l in 3 Factor Mean I M SD Factor I “Low efi’ort” 2.66 1.25 8 Laziness .76 13 Bad study habits .75 20 No attention in class .7 5 11 Do not do homework .72 10 Procrastinate .69 5 Lack of time .63 9 Talk too much .60 2 Lose interest .56 14 Too much work to do .56 16 Tired .51 Total Variance-Per Factor 39.6 -Cumulative 39.6 Eigen Value 5.94 Winn; .91 Pmptual factorg pf failure fer Kereap adoleseents. For Korean adolescents, three factors in defining failure in school emerged and accounted for 26.7% of the total variance (Table 8). The first factor labeled “low effort” contained six items (lack of concentration, no attention in class, lack of will, lack of interest, distracting thoughts, and laziness), and explained 12.6% of the total variance. The second factor named “distracting interests” consisted of four items (billiards, smoking, boy or girl fiiends, and nintendo games), and accounted for 9.4% of the total variance. The third factor labeled “ill-organized environment” contained three items (class structure, too much homework, and chattering), and accounted for 4.7% of the total variance. S3 Table 8 Retatfl Fac_tor Leadings: F actere ef Far_l' ure in gheel fer Kereap Ageleseents Item no. F tor l in r Mean I II III M SD FactorI “Low efion” 2.41 1.01 7 Lack of concentration .73 -.O4 .09 11 No attention in class .61 -.O8 -.02 13 Lack of will .54 -.02 -.05 23 Lack of interest .44 .23 .09 5 Distracting thoughts .42 -.O4 -.01 16 Laziness .42 -.03 -.01 Factor 11 “Distracting interests” 5.68 1.33 9 Billiards -. 14 .78 .03 24 Smoking -.03 .67 . 16 8 Boy or girl fiiends .04 .41 -.O3 14 Nintendo games -.04 .40 .08 Factor III “Ill-organized environment” 3.24 1.34 17 Class structure .12 .06 .59 18 Too much homework -.11 .04 .47 19 Chattering .3 1 .20 .45 Total Variance-Per Factor 12.6 9.4 4.7 -Cumulative 12.6 22.0 26.7 Eigen Value 3.15 2.35 1.17 Qgfiiciept Alpha .70 .67 .54 A one-way MANOVA was used to test for gender differences among the factor scores. The results indicated a significant overall multivariate effect (Wilks’ =.88 E [3, 182] = 8.57, p < .001). A discriminant analysis revealed that distracting interests (SDFC = -. 89) contributed most to the differences between male and female groups. Boys thought distracting interests were more important components of failure in school subjects than did girls. Means and Q are listed in Table 45 in Appendix M. Follow-up univariate F tests indicated statistically significant differences on low efi‘ort, distracting interests, and ill- organized environment (low effort _E§= .28; distracting interests E_S= .49; ill-organized environment E_S= .29). 54 A correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationships between perceived competence scores (Academic and Global) and each factor-group scores. The result showed that Academic scores had significant correlations with low efi‘ort (E'- .17) and ill-organized environment (_F .18) and Global scores had significant correlations with low efl'ort (r= .16) and ill-organized environment (E .20) MW Renewal faetora pf sugeee fer Amerim adelegcents. For American adolescents, a factor analysis regarding the importance of 25 items in making them feel they can do well in sports revealed two factors which accounted for 48.4% of the total variance (Table 9). The first factor appeared to measure American adolescents’ perception of “dedication” which was composed of 10 items (confidence, work hard, do my best, attitude, self-esteem, participation, dedicated, motivation, team work, and practice), and accounted for 36.3% of total variance. The second factor labeled “innate ability” was composed of six items (speed, athletic ability, strong, physical fitness, smart, and good at sports), accounting for 12.1% of total variance. A one-way MANOVA procedure was used to test for gender difl‘erences among the factors. The results indicated a significant overall multivariate effect (W ilks’ = .97, F [2,194] = 3.49, p < .05). A discriminant analysis revealed that dedication (SDFC = -.96) and innate ability (SDF C = .89) contributed most to the gender difi‘erences. Girls thought that dedication was more important to doing well in sports than did boys; whereas, boys thought innate ability was more important to doing well in sports than did girls. Means and SDs are listed in Table 46 in Appendix M. F ollow-up univariate E tests 55 indicated no statistically significant differences on the two factors (dedication E =22; innate ability ES=.19). Table 9 Retatfl F aetor Loadings: F actore of Seceess in Spepts fer American Agelescents Item no. Facter loadings Pager Means I H M SD FactorI “Dedication” 1.45 .83 13 Confidence .84 . 17 20 Work hard .84 .15 14 Do my best .83 .16 3 Attitude .82 .10 6 Self-esteem .82 .17 12 Participation .77 .05 21 Dedicated .76 .13 15 Motivation .72 .13 11 Team work .70 .01 1 Practice .59 .29 Factor 11 “Innate ability” 2.32 1.08 9 Speed .10 .77 7 Athletic ability . 18 .67 18 Strong .04 .63 5 Physical fitness .16 .59 19 Smart .27 .52 8 Good at sports .21 .47 Total Variance-Per Factor 36.3 12.1 -Cumulative 36.3 48.4 Eigen Value 9.7 3.02 Qgfiicim Alpha .94 .82 A correlation coefficient test was used to test the correlations between perceived competence (Athletic and Global) on Harter’s questionnaire and each factor. The results showed that there were no significant relationships among those variables. cheptual actors of success for Kom adolescents. Factor analysis revealed only one factor which accounted for 18. 7% of the total variance (Table 10). The factor 56 labeled “efi’ort” was composed of seven items (practice, regular exercise, confidence, basic training, effort, diligence, and interest). A one-way AN OVA was used to see if there were any gender difi‘erences among the factor scores. The result showed no statistically significant differences between male and female groups (B [1, 198]=. 14, p> .05). Means and 8123 are listed in Table 47 in Appendix M. Table 10 Re_t_a1ed Factor Loadings: Factors of Success in Sports for Kereap Adelescents Item no. Factor loadings Factor Mean_ I M SD Factor I “Effort” 2.09 1.01 10 Practice .82 9 Regular exercise .7 3 11 Confidence .62 8 Basic training .61 7 Efi‘ort .60 19 Diligence .52 5 Interest .40 Total Variance-per factor 18.7 Eigen Value 4.3 Qeetfrcient Alpha .82 A correlation analysis was used to test correlations between perceived competence scores (Athletic and Global) and the factor scores. The result showed no significant relationships among the variables. cheptual faetprs pf failure fer American adoleseents. Factor analysis revealed a two-factor structure which accounted for 50.6% of the total variance (Table 11). The first factor appeared to be concerned with the American adolescents’ “bad attitude” which consisted of 11 items (do not care, bad sportsmanship, bad loser, low self-esteem, temper, bad mood, injury, fatigue, smoking, do not know rules, and no union), and explained 57 44.6% of the total variance. The second factor labeled “negative environment” was comprised of four items (bad places to play, stupid practice, too competitive, and fiiends), and accounted for 6.0% of the total variance. A one-way MANOVA was used to test for gender differences among the factor scores. The results indicated no significant overall multivariate effect (Wilks’ = .99, F [2,197] = .42, p > .05). Means and S_Ds for gender are listed in Table 48 in Appendix M. Table 11 Retatfi Factor Loadings: F actors of Failure in Sports for American Adolescents Item no. Factor loa in Fact r M I II M SD Factor I “Bad attitude” 2.94 1.31 21 Do not care .84 -.09 18 Bad sportsmanship .82 .19 16 Bad loser .72 .26 15 Low self-esteem .70 .22 14 Temper .66 .34 25 Bad mood .65 .27 12 Injury .65 .25 17 Fatigue .62 .18 22 Smoking .62 .13 24 Do not know rules .58 .35 6 No union .45 .27 Factor H “Negative environment” 3.09 1.40 10 Bad places to play .38 .65 9 Stupid practice .33 .56 7 Too competitive .23 .55 4 Friends -.06 .48 Total Variance-Per Factor 44.6 6.0 -Cumulative 44.6 50.6 Eigen Value 7.59 1.02 MM .93 .70 A Pearson correlation coefiicient was used to examine correlations between perceived competence scores (Athletic and Global) and each factor-group score. Only “negative environment” had a significant relationship with Athletic scores (r=.14). 58 Perceptual factors of failure fer Korea_n adelegents, A factor analysis revealed a three factor-structure for components of failure in sports. The three factors accounted for 33.8% of the total variance (Table 12). The first factor labeled “poor facilitative environment” included four items (lack of facilities, lack of equipment, poor environment, and no availabe time), and accounted for 16.7% of the total variance. The second factor labeled “low effort” contained four items (lack of effort, lack of will, laziness, and fat) and explained 11.4% of the total variance. The third factor named “task dimculty and lack of support” consisted of four items (too hard to play, no instructor, no money and fear of injury), and explained 5.7% of the total variance. A one-way MAN OVA was used to test for gender differences among the factor scores. The results indicated a significant overall multivariate effect (W ilks’ =.91 F [3,196] = 6.21, p <.001). Discriminant analysis revealed that low effort (SDFC = -l.00) contributed most to the differences for male and female groups. Girls thought low effort was more important than did boys in defining failure in sports. Means and S_Ds for gender are listed in Table 49 Appendix M. Follow-up univariate E—tests indicated statistically significant difl‘erences on low effort (poor facilitative environment ES=.O6; low effort E_S=.59; task difficulty & lack of support E_S=.11). 59 Table 12 Retated Factor Loadings: Factors of Failure in Smrts for Korean Adolescents Item no. F ctor adin 3 Factor Mm I II III M SD F actor I “Poor facilitative environment” 2.45 1.40 3 Lack of facilities .78 .04 .07 4 Lack of equipment .72 -.04 .15 16 Poor environment .67 .01 .05 2 No available time .45 .05 .04 Factor 11 “Low efi'ort” 3.47 1.43 7 Lack of effort -.02 .75 -.08 13 Lack of will -.05 .73 .01 18 Laziness -.06 .46 .21 1 Fat .04 .40 .29 Factor III “Task difiiculty & lack of support” 4.60 1.43 24 Too hard to play -.01 .01 .57 23 No instructor .27 .13 .57 22 No money .17 -.02 .54 21 Fear of injury -.06 .08 .48 Total Variance-Per Factor 16.7 11.4 5.7 -Cumulative 16.7 28.1 33.8 Eigen Value 4.2 2.8 1.4 W .76 .70 .66 A correlation analysis was used to test the relationships between perceived competence scores (Athletic and Global) and each factor-group score. The results indicated that Athletic scores had a statistically significant correlation with low efi’ort (r_=.28) and Global scores had a significant correlation with poor facilitative environment (r=.19). In summary, separate factor analyses for American and Korean adolescents revealed that some similar and some difi‘erent subscales between the two cultures in defining their success and failure in school and sports. Regarding sex difi‘erences within each culture, MANOVA tests revealed that there were significant sex differences in 60 defining success and failure in school and sports. A detailed discussion of these findings are presented in Chapter IV. 61 CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION w ul r m ' n The main purpose of this study was to examine cross-cultural comparisons of the similarities and difi‘erences of high school adolescents living in the metropolitan industrialized areas of Korea and the USA. with respect to their definitions of success and failure in school and sport. .Using different questionnaires in each culture made direct cultural comparisons impossible. In addition, caution is necessary in interpreting these results because there was no means by which to independently confirm interpretations. As expected, there were some similarities and some differences between the two cultures in regard to these definitions. Adolescents from the two cultures shared smaller difl‘erences in defining their success and failure in academic areas but bigger differences in defining their success and failure in sports. Therefore, as previous findings suggested, the meaning of success and failure in school and sports appeared to differ between the two cultures, and between males and females. cheptions Qf Eggs in ghggl. First, for both American and Korean adolescents, “effort” and “attitude” were two common factors, which accounted for a larger portion of the total variance than the other factors in school. Students from both cultures perceived “efi‘ort” and “attitude” to be the most important factors for success in school although the items that made up these factors were slightly different in each culture 62 and cannot be interpreted as being the “same.” To be specific, the item, “good grades” in the effort factor for Americans was ambiguous in that we do not know whether the students thought good grades were the result of their ability or their effort. . The unique factor to the American culture was “social competence,” while the - Korean culture emphasized “constructive skills” and “good climate.” “Social competence” (outgoing, play sports, fiiends and firn) was revealed as an important factor for American adolescents. Social life and social skills in and out of school, as well as studying school subjects are very important for American students because, according to the results of a demographic questionnaire, they have more fi'ee time and opportunity for fiiends and extracurricular activities than do Korean adolescents. Furthermore, American adolescents believe that this social competence is at least somewhat important to their doing well in acadenrics. American adolescents may also have strong peer pressure which may not be as prevalent among Korean adolescents. According to Coleman (1961) and other researchers, American society has created an adolescent subculture that favors physical attractiveness and heterosexual popularity over academic achievement, especially within the schools themselves. The adolescent subculture undermines the attainment of educational goals (Coleman, 1961; Powell & Powell, 1983; Santrock, 1981). Unlike American adolescents, Korean students are not very sensitive to their popularity. American parents also think that their children’s popularity is very important in their school life. Some parents set up elaborate parties, buy cars and clothes for their teens, and drive their adolescents ,And their fiiends around in the hope that their son or daughter will be popular (Santrock, 1981). On the contrary, Korean parents do not value their children’s social life. They keep their children fi'om doing extracurricular activities, 63 playing sports, and having fun with friends because they think that those things obstruct their children’s concentration on academic study. Lack of social life for Korean adolescents brings about some problems. Korean adolescents have some difficulties in dealing with stress. It appears that they suppress their stress rather than reducing it because they rarely have opportunities to talk about their problems with fiiends or parents. Another problem lies in interpersonal relationships. Compared to American adolescents, Korean adolescents are less skillful in terms of better communication among people so that they are not good at leading debates or conversations (Wood, 1991). In particular, the Korean society’s strict restriction of heterosexual relationships until high school days affects Korean adolescents’ behaviors toward opposite sex fiiends. Korean boys and girls do not know how to treat each other. The influence of playing sports on doing well in academics may have a special significance for American adolescents that is separate fi'om social competence. In all high schools in the United States, athletes must maintain a certain grade point average in order to play their sport. Thus, for high school athletes sport may be a primary motivator for doing well in acadenrics. “Constructive skills” and “good climate” were unique factors for Korean students. Increasing studying time, concentration, and time management were the items that formed the factor, “constructive skills.” “Good climate” consisted of confidence, fiiends, and classroom atmosphere. These factors are very important for Koreans because the high school students in Korea must pass the college entrance examinations to enter college. Most Korean students stay in school fi'om 7 AM to 10 PM to study. The schools do not necessarily require them to remain in schools these many hours and classes are not 64 scheduled this entire time, but students are expected to be there to study and take advantage of additional opportunities. By day and by night, at school and at home, they are reminded to study for the examinations by their teachers as well as their educationally conscious mothers whose overriding concern lies in the success of their children’s examinations. However, regardless of their efi’ort, there is no guarantee that they can go to college. Thus, they are under constant stress and strain and kept uneasy about their future. Indeed, several studies on causes of stress for Korean adolescents revealed that school (academic)—related problems were the primary causal factor for adolescents’ stress (Kim, 1987; Won & Lee, 1987). On the other hand, for American students, their concern was more of heterosexual relationships, such as dating, parties and other pleasure seeking activities (Coleman, 1961; Powell & Powell, 1983). There is less of a need for American adolescents to worry too much about examinations in order to enter college. The entrance examination system in Korea has been regarded as a “social cancer” which deters Korean students from normal growth both mentally and physically. It dictates and distorts the curricula of the schools below the university level, and keeps the students fi'om participating in extracurricular activities or other daily activities at school and home. So, it seems that Korean high schools exist for the sole purpose of students passing the college entrance examinations (Ham, 1986; Kim, 1991). This undesirable educational system also influences Korean parents’ attitudes toward their children. Many Korean parents appear to push their children too far to do well in school. The following is a letter which a girl wrote before she committed suicide. This letter is extracted fi'om a book written by Ham (1986) and translated by this author. To H I hate to be the top in the class. I hate the students who only study. My dream is different, I need fiiends. But my mom doesn’t like my dream or my fiiends. I am a human being. I have the right to like my fiiends. I can cry when I am separate from my fiiends. But, sometimes, she beats me and says, “don’t get along with your fiiends.” She always gives me sad words: “No matter what the situation is, you should win” or “Don’t make friends.” But she is my beloved mother who has been taking care of me for fifteen years. It is a discrepancy. The life is competition! competition! study! study! ........ The content of this letter is very sad. This might be one of the extreme examples in that a mother’s reckless pushing brought about her beloved child’s suicide. However, unfortunately, this is not an individual’s problem in Korea because many Korean parents still push their children too much regardless of their children’s interests, ability, or limitations (Park & Shin, 1991). Why do Korean parents care about their children’s ability to enter college so much? And why do they push their children so much? A possible answer lies in the many disadvantages that exist in Korea without a college degree. In Korea, it is very difficult to get a job, to marry, to be promoted and so on without a college degree. According to Korean newspapers, in 1983 when the author entered college, about 700,000 students applied for college but only 150,000 students were accepted. About four out of five students could not go to college. Although there are some differences in terms of degree of seriousness, this problem will continue until 1999. After the year 2000, all applicants will be able to go to college because the high school age population will have drastically decreased. It will be interesting to see if the attitudes of Korean students and their parents change after the turn of the century. 66 The culturally different factors appear to represent what each culture emphasizes to the adolescents. American culture tends to emphasize both academic achievement and social life in school; whereas, Korean culture appears to emphasize only academic achievement. The different weights of factors as well as selecting different words in defining success in school suggest that American and Korean adolescents have somewhat different meanings of success in school. Success in school means future success for Korean adolescents. If Korean students are good at acaderrrics, they can go to a more prestigious college which in turn will get them a better job and a better life. Although success in school might also be important for American adolescents, they do not tend to believe that success in school is the single determinant for their future success. The results of this study were partially supported by Kawano’s (1992) study. Her study revealed that there were significant cultural differences between American and Japanese college students in defining success in school. Americans identified the antecedents for success in school to be internal, personal and changeable aspects (i.e., “a will to work hard,” “motivation,” intelligence,” “good time management,” “good attitude,” “knowledge,” “having done your best” and “good instructors”). These antecedents seem to be equivalent to two factors ( “efi‘ort” and “attitude”) in the present study. However, there were no items related to “social competence” in Kawano’s study. Japanese students perceived the antecedents of success in school to be more interpersonal and desirable characteristics of a good person (i.e., “cooperation,” “good connections,” “good luck,” “interested in learning,” “humor,” “charm,” “self goals,” “open character,” “ability,” “a short time to go to school,” and “precision”). Japanese students’ definitions are very difi’erent from Korean students’. Korean adolescents did not perceive 67 interpersonal aspects as the factors of success in school but perceived more directly related aspects to school subjects such as efi‘ort or academic strategies. One possible explanation for the cultural difl‘erences between Korean and Japanese students may be due to age differences between the two studies. The target population for Kawano’s study was college students who already entered college so that their definitions of success in school were difi‘erent from Korean adolescents. Perceptions of failure in school. In terms of failure, only one factor emerged for American adolescents; whereas, three factors emerged for Korean adolescents in defining failure in school. “Low effort” was the only factor for Americans but “distracting interests” and “ill-organized environment,” as well as “low effort” were perceived as the factors by Koreans. “Distracting interests” was not rated by Korean adolescents as a very important factor for failure in school. However, ill-organized environment was rated at least moderately important as an explanation for failure in school. Perhaps a disorganized classroom atmosphere appeared to be an important influence on their failure in school because Korean students stay long hours at school to study. Among three items of the ill- organized environment factor, “homework” showed up differently for American and Korean adolescents as an item of failure in schools. For American students, they felt if they do not do homework they would not do well in school subjects; whereas, too much homework was the item for Korean adolescents’ failure in school because most Korean students do their homework. However, the author had the chance to talk to American teachers in high schools in the midwest where she collected the data. American teachers said that their students do not do homework well and do not turn it in on time. Some 68 students do not care what teachers say. American teachers also complained about students’ parents. The teachers believe that parents do not care what their children learn in school and do not check whether their children finish their homework or not. Another problem is that some American students have part-time jobs. American teachers believe that some students are more interested in making money than learning something in school. After work, they may feel too tired to do homework. One surprising result was that an ability-oriented factor did not emerge for either American or Korean adolescents in defining their success and failure in school. This finding did not support Holloway et al. ’3 (1986) study which claimed that American students are more ability-oriented than Japanese students and Japanese students are more effort-oriented than Americans. According to Kawano’s (1992) study, American college students defined the antecedents for failure in school as more changeable, internal and undesirable behaviors which may have related to their personal attitude for schooling: e. g., “cheated,” “lack of interest in learning,” “no understanding of materials,” “dropped out,” “bad attitude,” “no intelligence,” and “lack of motivation.” American college students’ definitions are somewhat different from high school students’ in the sense that high school students perceived low effort-related items as components of failure in school rather than attitude- oriented components. In addition, high school students did not choose intelligence as did college students. Students in high school appear to be graded and passed more on their efi‘ort than their intelligence. Japanese college students perceived external, interpersonal and depressive items (i.e., “problems,” “not being sincere,” “self-centered,” “bad fiiend,” “depression,” “no goal,” and “a lot of part-time job”) as important antecedents of failure in 69 school. However, Korean high school students perceived changeable and internal factors as well as external environment as the important components of failure in school. Again, this difference suggests that different age groups have different definitions of failure in school. Pergmions of success in sports. When the factors of success and failure are compared between American and Korean adolescents in sports, there are bigger cultural difi’erences in sports than in school. The factor structure for American adolescents in sports accounted for more of the total variance in responses than it did for Koreans in sports and for school. To be specific, if we compare the definitions of success in sports, “innate ability,” as well as “dedication” were important factors for American adolescents; whereas, only one factor, “efi‘ort,” defined success in sports for Korean adolescents. Two factors, “dedication” for Americans and “effort” for Koreans shared some common items such as practice and confidence. “Innate ability” included more various items (speed, athletic ability, strong, physical fitness, smart, good at sports) than the responses which Korean students provided in Phase 1. For Koreans, although athletic ability ranked high in the frequency tables, only one item (athletic ability) is related to innate ability. Therefore, there is no wonder that “innate ability” did not emerge in the Korean factor structure. These difi’erences between Korean and American adolescents in selecting words to define their success in sports may be due to sports experiences. Compared to American adolescents, Koreans lacked sports experiences, especially in competitive situations. More experienced individuals may have more explicit meanings in defining success in sports. Future research might examine this question to see if it is a “pancultural” phenomenon. For Korean students, as Phase 1 results showed, “athletic ability” outranked “smart” 70 which is only one item related to ability in acadenrics. This result showed that Korean adolescents perceived ability as a more important factor in sport contexts than academic areas. However, Korean students’ responses in Phase 1 were mostly related to efi’ort and facilitative environment. This result reflects that how much Korean society emphasizes efi’ort regardless of domains. Pmptigns of failure in spurts. American adolescents perceived “bad attitude” and “negative environment” as the factors for their failure in sports; whereas, Korean adolescents perceived “poor facilitative environment,” “low effort,” and “task difficulty and lack of support” to be the factors for failure in sports. These results indicated that there were differences between the two cultures in defining failure in sports. First, “bad attitude” unique for Americans contained very situation-specific items (do not care, bad sportsmanship, temper, bad loser, bad mood and so on) which may occur in real competitive sports situations. Korean students did not perceive such attitude-oriented items for failure in sports because they did not participate in those competitive sports or physical activities. This cultural difference implied that the lack of real sports experiences in competitive situations failed to lead Korean students to select and provide the words such as “bad loser” and “temper” in an open-ended questionnaire. “Poor facilitative environment” and “task difiiculty and lack of support” reflect Korean sports settings. One possible explanation for these findings is the following. The author visited several American high schools. All high schools had gymnasiums and other indoor facilities such as swimnring pools. The author also visited several Korean high schools. Those high schools did not have any gymnasiums or other indoor facilities. They had only sand grounds. That means that high school students cannot play sports in 71 U wintertime and on rainy days. IfKorean varsity teams use the sand ground, other classes cannot even use that ground for physical activity classes. In addition, Korean parents strongly object to their children’s participation in organized sports although some children are very talented at certain sports. In addition, Korean schools do not provide the necessary equipment and encourage students to do physical activities. The academic-oriented curricula in Korean schools do not give students chances or available time to become involved in sports or other activities (Kang, 1987; Yoon, 1993). Due to these poor environments, Korean students lacked sport experiences which made them feel that it was hard to play sports. The emerged factors reflected a Korean society that does not encourage or support sports participation for adolescents. Lack of experiences in sports may have influenced Korean adolescents not only to select different words to define success and failure but also the weightings and importance of each component which created a factor. Success or failure in sports is not important for Korean adolescents except for a few elite players because no significant others praise and reinforce their success or punish their failure in sports. Therefore, the meanings of success or failure in sports for Korean adolescents appear to be a lot different fi'om American adolescents. In the results of Phase 1, for Korean girls and boys, “available time” was the number one response for failure and number two response for success in sports. The item, available time which belonged to the factor, poor facilitative environment was the most important component for Korean adolescents. The factor, “task difficulty and lack of support” (too hard to play, no instructor, no money and fear of injury) also reflected 72 cultural differences. Descriptive statistics fi'om the demographic questionnaire in Phase 2 provided a possible answer about these cultural differences. Only 30% of Korean students had sports experiences in the past year; whereas, 66% American students had sports experiences. F urtherrnore, among the subjects who experienced sports in the past year, more than 80% of American subjects participated in Junior-Varsity or Varsity levels of sport but about 90% of Korean subjects participated in intramural or unorganized levels of sports. Poor facilitative environment and no support fi'om significant others prevent Korean adolescents fi'om being involved in sports or physical activities. Kawano’s (1992) study revealed that there were cross-cultural differences in defining the antecedents for success and failure in sports. Americans perceived changeable, internal and external components (i. e., “self-confidence,” “drive,” “good ” 66 physical condition, encouragement,” and good attitude” ) as the antecedents for success in sports. In contrast, Japanese students mostly perceived unchangeable, physiological and uncontrollable ability related factors (e. g., “the natural physical endowment,” “power,” “talent,” “athletic ability,” “faith,” and “good physical stamina” ) as the components for success in sports. The results of her study are quite different fi'om the results of the present study. There were no ability related iterrrs for Americans in Kawano’s study. However, the present study showed that American adolescents perceived innate ability (speed, athletic ability, strong, physical fitness, smart, good at sports) as the important factor for success in sports. Surprisingly, Japanese students perceived ability rather than effort as an important factor for success in sports. In terms of failure in sports American students perceived internal changeable and external terms (i. e., “poor self-esteem,” “bad sportsmanship,” and “poor coaching”) as 73 the components of failure in sports. In contrast, Japanese students perceived changeable, internal psychological terms or attitudes, such as “apathy,” “lack of ambition,” and “not been serious,” as the antecedents of failure in sports. Compared to the present study, the American college students’ responses are similar to American high school students’ in the sense that high school students also perceived “bad attitude” such as low self-esteem and bad sportsmanship and “negative environment” such as stupid practice and too competitive. However, Korean students perceived “low efi’ort” or “poor facilitative environment” rather than attitude-oriented antecedents perceived by the Japanese students. Although “innate ability” was a factor of success in sports for Americans, lack of ability was not a factor in defining failure in sports. In fact there were no items in the top 25 list of items of failure for Americans. This may support a sort of self-serving attributional bias style (Miller, 1976). That is at least for Americans, there is a need to maintain or enhance that aspect of self-esteem concerned with achievement outcomes. When people are successful, they are motivated to enhance self-esteem by attributing the success to elements of personal control such as ability and effort. By contrast, when people experience failure, they are motivated to protect self-esteem by attributing the failure to elements beyond their control such as task difliculty, luck, or the environment. In the present study, however, it may be that attributing failure to lack of effort also serves to protect self-esteem but lack of ability would be damaging to self-esteem. Oddly, Korean adolescents ranked “lack of athletic ability” quite high in defining failure in sports in Phase 1, but it was not associated with any of the factors. However, they did provide some self-protecting attributions for failure in sport and school (e. g., task difiiculty, poor 74 facilitative environment, lack of support). The self-serving attributional bias style is also supported by Bukowski et al.’s (1980) study. In the study, American boys were more ability oriented than girls in sport situations and American boys attributed their success to ability but they did not attribute their failure to lack of ability. This result also suggests that the two concepts, “success” and “failure” must be separately treated in asking definitions because the components which play an important role in promoting “success” would not simply be those whose absence guaranteed “failure” and vice-versa. Comparisons pf the fagors between sghpol and smrts. Regardless of culture or domains, “effort/dedication” is a common factor in defining success and failure. For American students, attitude is a common factor in school and in sports. Differences in domains are “social competence” for school and “innate ability” and “negative environment” for sports. American adolescents perceived “social competence” as an important factor in defining their success in school but “innate ability” and “negative environment” as important factors in defining their success and failure in sports. One surprising result is “social competence” (outgoing, fun, fiiends, and play sports). This factor appears to relate to sports but emerged in defining success in school There is no wonder that ability emerged as an important factor in defining success in sports because American society emphasizes ability as the important factor in determining success in sports. However, innate ability did not emerge in defining success in school even though some studies showed that American students perceived ability as the important factor for their success in school as well as in sports (Holloway et al., 1986; Stevenson et al., 1986). One possible explanation is that in Phase 1 responses, “smart” was only one item related to ability. In expressing their ability in academic situations, American adolescents chose 75 only one word, “smart” which is a general term. However, in describing physical ability, a greater variety of words were used (i.e., speed, strong, athletic ability, smart, good at sports). Students have more various words which they can choose in expressing their ability in sports than in acadenrics. In this study, one item related to ability in school cannot create one factor. Another possible explanation is that innate ability appears to be a more important factor for sports than for academics even though a specific subject like math requires a person’s ability to some extent. Perhaps American teachers and parents emphasize efi‘ort in academics more than they do in sports. In American high school athletics, an adolescent has to “try-out” for a sports team. The athletes who are not very skilled are cut from the team. This may reinforce an ability notion in defining success in sports for American adolescents. The motivational climate in sport is structured to be more outcome than task oriented which fosters an ability-oriented goal seeking attitude (Ames, 1992; Roberts, 1993). Korean adolescents had more differences than similarities between the factors in school and the factors in sports. “Good attitude,” “good climate,” “constructive skills,” and “distracting interests” emerged for definitions of success and failure in school but “poor facilitative environment” and “task difficulty and lack of support” emerged for definitions of success and failure in sports. These big differences reflected different educational settings for areas of acadenrics and sports. One interesting result is about m f—v-a‘ -x” 1 ksr‘ip’prrgt. «’Korean students receive big support for areas of academics fi'om significant others but they are discouraged fi'om being involved in sports. “Poor facilitative environment” is another piece of evidence for Korean society’s de-emphasis on sports. Therefore, the factors for school were more internal and controllable; whereas, the factors 76 for sports were external and uncontrollable. These differences reflect Korean adolescents’ interest and devotion in school. In addition,'the performance goals that American and Korean students had for considering themselves successful in school and sport may have been different. For example, some individuals may set a goal of receiving passing grades as being successfirl; whereas, others may set a goal of getting into one of the top 3 colleges in their country as being successful. As well, some students may settle for mediocre goals to feel successful in school, but believe that one has to be an Olympic contender to be successful in sport. Future research may assess this possibility by asking students to list the things that make them “feel they are successful,” or “have reached success” in sport and in school. In summary, the factors which emerged for Americans and Koreans in defining success and failure in school and sports were based on many cultural factors. To be specific, difi‘erent educational settings for acadenrics and sports play an important role in defining adolescents’ success and failure in school and in sports. Furthermore, parents’ and coaches’ emphasis or de-emphasis on certain areas may have influenced adolescents’ definitions of success and failure in school and in sports as well as their goals for being successful. Therefore, it is concluded that different weights of cultural values influence the adolescents’ subjective meanings of success or failure in certain contexts with the result that adolescents tend to behave in socially desirable ways and evaluate their behavior in the light of socially desirable goals. 93mm Another purpose of this study was to examine if there were any gender differences in defining success and failure in school and in sports. The results of this study showed 77 that there were gender differences in defining success and failure in school and in sports. Regardless of culture, the results indicated that girls rated “effort” and “low effort” as more important to performance in school. This gender difl‘erence implies that girls are more effort-oriented than boys in school. This result partially supported some attributional studies and Maehr and Nicholls (1980)’s goal orientations. Girls tend to attribute their success to their effort and boys tend to attribute their success to ability (V erofi‘, 1969; Bukowski et al., 1980). Girls and boys have difl’erent goals for achievement. Boys have more ability-oriented goals and girls have a combination between ability-oriented goals and social approval -oriented goals (effort-oriented goals). Within the American culture, there were significant gender differences on “effort” and “social competence” between American boys and girls in defining their success in school. “Efi’ort” was more important factor for American girls than for boys in defining their success in school; whereas, “social competence” was more important factor for American boys than for girls. Why did girls rate efi‘ort oriented items (do homework, attention in class, study, and good grades) to be more important? One possible explanation is that parents and teachers expect girls to behave better in class, to do homework, and to be neat so that girls perceived “effort” as a more important factor than boys did. Indeed, girls have better high school grades than boys, in part because they follow the rules, are better behaved, and are better prepared for class (Cross, 1968; Maccoby, 1974). Girls are rewarded for efforts at school and boys are rewarded for ability at sports. Rewards and praise contribute to children’s achievement motivation. There is no wonder that American boys perceived social competence as a more important factor than girls did because four items for “social competence” (outgoing, fun, 78 play sports and fiiends) are more action-oriented and related to popularity. In the process of socialization, American society socializes boys into active, independent, and aggressive roles (Fling & Manosevitz, 1972; Hartley, 1979). These four items represent boys’ stereotyped roles. Some research supported that popularity and social competence are more important aspects for boys than girls (Coie, Dodge, & Kupersnridt, 1991; Coleman, 1961; Eitzen, 1976). Korean boys and girls also had significant differences on “effort” and “constructive skills” in defining their success in school. “Efi‘ort” and “constructive skills” were more important factors for Korean girls than for Korean boys. Like American girls, Korean girls also more efi‘ort-oriented than boys. Korean girls are also rewarded for efforts at school. In addition, Korean boys and girls had significant gender difi‘erences on “low efi‘ort” and “distracting interests” in defining their failure in school. “Low efi‘ort” was a more important factor for Korean girls than for Korean boys. Although there was a gender difference on “distracting interests,” both Korean boys and girls perceived “distracting interests” as an unimportant factor for failure in school. Therefore, these results suggest that boys and girls regardless of cultures, appear to perceive their success and failure in school in the light of personal experiences or actual goals. In terms of sports, American boys and girls had a significant overall multivariate effect but follow-up univariate E tests failed to show any significant sex differences in defining success. “Dedication” was more important factor for American girls than for American boys in defining success; whereas “innate ability” was more important factor for American boys than for American girls. These results are supported by attribution studies and Ewing’s (1981) study. Many attribution studies showed that girls are more likely than 79 boys to attribute their success to high efi’ort; whereas boys are more likely than girls to attribute their successes to having ability (Veroff, 1969; Bukowski et al., 1980). Ewing’s (1981) study also revealed that American high school boys perceived ability and observable effort to be important antecedents for success in sports; whereas American girls perceived mental effort/dedication to be important antecedents for success in sports. However, there were no significant gender differences between Korean boys and girls for their success in sports. No gender differences were found for American boys and girls in defining failure in sports. However, Korean boys and girls showed gender differences on “low efi‘ort” in defining failure in sports. “Low efi‘ort” was a more important factor for Korean girls than for Korean boys in sports. Regardless of domains (school or sports), Korean girls consistently rated effort to be the more important factor than Korean boys did in defining their success and failure. This is a surprising result because sport is a more salient domain for boys than for girls. In addition, Korean society socializes boys to be more active and outgoing than girls. One Korean study on relationships between sport involvement and leadership of elementary students showed that there were significant gender differences in involving various types of sports between nrale and female elementary students. Korean boys had higher scores than girls in afl‘ective involvement, cognitive involvement, passive involvement and active involvement of sports. Particularly, it was found that there was a larger difference between them in cognitive involvement of sports (Chung, 1993). Chung’s (1993) study suggests that Korean boys have more opportunities and interests in sports than girls do. However, the results of the present study showed that Korean girls were more effort oriented than Korean boys in sports. One possible explanation is that 80 Korean girls’ perceptions in sports may relate to more socially desirable goals rather than their personal experiences or interests. In other words, although Korean girls are not interested in sports and do not actually put forth effort for success, they perceived low efi‘ort as a more important factor for failure in sports than boys did. This implies that, for Korean girls, success and failure in sports could be perceived in the light of socially desirable goals rather than actual personal goals or values. Another surprising finding was that there were smaller gender differences in sports than in school. All univariate E tests in sports failed to show any gender differences for American subjects. There were no significant gender difi‘erences in sports. One possible explanation for this result is that many movements in America in the last decade might have changed American girls’ attitudes and perceptions of sports. Until the 19703, girls’ interests in sports were largely ignored in most countries. Girls were relegated to the bleachers during their brothers’ games and given the hope of growing up to be high school cheerleaders. Then the women’s movement, the fitness movement, and government legislation prohibiting sex discrimination all came together to provide an impetus for the development of new programs. During the 19703 and early 19803 these programs grew to the point that girls in North America have almost as many opportunities as boys. However, their participation rates remain lower than those for boys (Coakely, 1990). According to a survey in the United States (the Miller Lite Report, 1983), the involvement of both boys and girls in sport programs is widely supported by the general public. Only 9% of the parents in the survey said they never encouraged their children to participate in sports, and 62% of the parents said their children did participate in some 81 type of organized sport activity. The majority of the parents reported that they supported their boys and girls equally for sport participation. Ewing’s (1981) study found that there were gender difi‘erences in definitions of success and failure in general achievement situations and in sports. The results showed that American high school boys identified more tangible and objective aspects ( i.e., money and skill), while high school girls identified more personal, internal and subjective aspects (i.e., doing your best, firn, understanding, trying hard, and patience) as the antecedents for success in general achievement situations. In terms of success in sports, Ewing’s (1981) study revealed that American boys identified “ability,” “skill,” and “hard work,” while girls identified “playing your best,” “teamwork,” and “determination.” Boys’ responses appeared to be more uncontrollable than girls’ responses, while girls’ responses were more changeable and mental than boys’. In the present study, American boys rated “innate ability” to be more important factor than girls did; whereas, American girls rated “dedication” to be more important factor than boys did. Both Ewing’s (1981) study and the present study implied that ability for success in sport was more important for American boys than for girls, whereas, mental dedication for success in sport was more important for American girls than for boys. In terms of failure in sports, Ewing’s (1981) study revealed that American boys perceived more stable factors (i.e., “no talent,” “no ability,” “no dedication”) as the antecedents of failure in sports, while girls perceived attitude-oriented items (i.e., “no interest,” “A don’t care attitude,” “no will,” and “bad attitude”). In the present study, there were no gender differences on the two emerged factors, “bad attitude” and “negative environment.” 82 In summary, the results of this study revealed that boys are more sports-oriented than girls and girls are more efi‘ort-oriented in school than boys. These findings support the traditional views of sex-stereotyping roles. These gender difi‘erences represent what parents or teachers expect fi'om boys and girls. Parents and teachers expect girls to behave better in class and be better prepared for class; whereas, they expect boys to be active enough to participate in physical activities or sports. Therefore, this different socialization for boys and girls affects difi’erent goal orientations which ultimately influence their subjective meanings of success and failure in certain domains. l ' hi P iv m en The results of correlation analyses showed a general lack of relationships among three domains (Academic, Athletic, and Global self-worth) on Harter’s questionnaire of perceived competence and the importance of various factors to success and failure. Although there were some significant correlations among those variables, correlations were low (r=.20). There are two possible explanations for these results. One possible explanation is that Harter’s questionnaire was the last part of the Phase 2 questionnaire so that subjects might feel bored about reading questions and therefore marked them at random. Second possible explanation is that questions for this study and items on the Harter’s questionnaire do not measure the same things. Harter’s items for academic and athletic domains focus on measuring subjects’ perceived competence in school and in sports. Global self-worth was designed to measure general positive or negative feelings toward the self. However, the four questions for this study were designed to measure importance of components to success and failure such as effort and social competence in- school and in sports. Therefore, what one feels is important for success or failure does / ./ / I! / j 1].- 83 not necessarily correlate with one’s own perceived level of success or failure. To get at the relationships between importance of success and failure and level of perceived competence, one would have to ask respondents the extent to which they believe they have acquired these components. / /' Conclusion and Implications / In conclusion, there are large perceptual difi’erences between Korean and American ," I [cultures in defining success and failure. Success and failure definitions are a function of subjective perceptions and not all cultures or all individuals within a culture perceive success and failure in the same way. Knowing the definitions of success and failure in certain contexts is very helpful to understanding adolescents’ achievement motivation and behavior. One of the most practical implications of this research is that given the relationship between culture and achievement motivation, there is a possible suggestion that the study of cultural variations in definitions of success and failure among adolescents could be introduced into the cunicula of teacher training. To prevent achievement behavior fiom serving as false judgment against certain ethnic or cultural groups, teachers should be H ‘r \ sensitive to cultural or ethnic variations in subjective meanings of success and failure in school and sport contexts. Therefore, the present study points to the need for such strung Dir 'on There are several possible firture research directions. First, if this study is replicated with other cultures such as other Asian cultures and Western cultures, then different components of success and failure in school and in sports might be obtained. 84 Second, if the same study was conducted after the year 2000, difi‘erent results might be obtained because every Korean student will be able to go to college at that time. Korean students may not be pushed as hard fiom parents and teachers. This change in acadenrics may provide more opportunities and fi'ee time for physical activities and sports participation. Third, this study focused on adolescents’ importance of perceptual components of success and failure in school and sports rather than their own level of strength on the components of success and failure. For example, the subjects could be asked: “how much do you think your effort determines your success in school or sports?” Fourth, this study also focused on only two domains (acadenrics and sports). If researchers studied the social domain cross-culturally, they might obtain interesting cultural difl‘erences. In addition, future cross-cultural research of success and failure between American and Korean cultures on more domain-specific areas, such as physical attractiveness and body image in the physical domain and reading and science in academics, could also be explored as well as other domains where innate talent is emphasized by the cultures, such as art and music. Finally, the present study focused on investigating culture-specific factors between American and Korean adolescents in defining success and failure in school and in sports. Future study may examine these perceptual components to confirm the three universal goals in achievement situations hypothesized by Meahr and Nicholls (1980). LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational process, In G. Roberts (Ed.), Mptivation in exercise and sppg (pp. 161-176). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Atkinson, J. W. ( 195 8) Thematic appeceptive measurement of motives within the context of a theory of motivation. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed. ), WM miety (pp. 596-616). Princeton. Van Nostrand. Atkinson, J. W. & Feather, N. T. (1966). A theory of mpp'vstipn. New York: John erey & Sons. Atkinson, J. W. & Raynor, J. O. (1974). Motivation and achievement. Washington, DC: V. H. Winston. Azuma, H. (1989). Motivation. In Azuma, H., & K. Kashiwagi (Ed.), Educap'gpal Pucholpgy . Tokyo: Yuhikaku. Bagby, J. W. (1957). A cross-cultural study of perceptual predominance in binocular rivalry. Tm Journal pf finpm and Spgial Psyghplpgy, 54, 331-34. Blair, S. N., Kohl, H. W. ,Pafl‘enbarger, R S. ,Clark, D. G, Cooper, K. H., & Gibbons, L. W. (1989). Physical fitness and all-cause Ammortality: A prospective study2 of healthy men and women. 2395-2401. Brawley, L. R, & Roberts, G. C. (1984). Attribution in sport: Research foundations, characteristics, and limitations. In J. M. Silva & R S. Weinberg (Eds), h l ' f ' f (pp. 97-213). Champaign; IL: Human Kinetics. Bukowski, W. U. & Moore, D. (1980). Winners’ and losers’ attributions for success and failure in series of athletic events. f P h l 2 195-210. Carroll, J. B. (1956). Lan u an reali ' elected writin s f Ben' Whgrf. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Chang, Y. (1977). The urban Korean as individual. Kprm Jppranl, 17, 112-135. Chung, J. B. (1993). A study of relationship between sport involvement and leadership of elementary students. Unpublished thesis, Korea Kyowon University. Church, A T. (1987). Personality research in a non-Western culture: ThePhilippinesPsyohological Bulletio, 102, 272-292. Coakely, J. J. (1990). Spofl in socioty: issues and conttoversies. St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing. Coie, J .D., Dodge, K. A, & Kupersmidt, J. (1991). Peer group behavior and social status. In S. R Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 17-59). New York: Cambridge University Press. Coleman, J. S. (1961) The sdolescent socieg. New York: The Free Press. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco and London:W.H. Freeman and Company. Cross, P. (1968). College women: A research description. WM; fisociation of Women Deans sod Counsolors, 32, Cummings, W. K. (1980). Education m Egostig of 1912811. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Devos, G. (1986). Child development in Japan and the United States: perspectives of cross-cultural comparisons. In S. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta. (Eds), Child Development and Education in Japan (pp. 289-298). New York : W. H. Freeman and Company. Duda, J. L. (1981). A cross-culturfl analysis of schievsment motivstion in §pgfl§ mo olsssroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois. Duda, J. L. (1987). Toward a developmental theory of children’s motivation in sport. of P h l 9 130-145. Dweck, C., & Elliott, C. (1984). Achievement motivation. In M. Hetherigton(Ed.), Social development: W69. 643-691)- New York: Wiley. Eitzen, D. S. (1976). Athletics in the status system of male adolescents: A replication of Coleman’s, “The Adolescent society.” In A Yiannakis, T. McIntyre, M. Melnick, & D. Hart (Eds), i l ' n m em (pp. 150- 158). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Ewing, M. E. (1981). Achigement origttstiom and spott behavior of males and females. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois. 87 Feather, N. T. (1969). Attribution of responsibility and valence of success and failure in relation to initial confidence and perceived locus of control. Joo_rr_ral of Pergnflity god Social Psychology, 13, 129-144. Fling, S., & Manosevitz, M. (1972). Sex typing in nursery school children’s play interests. Developmental Psychology, _7, 146-152. Frieze, I. H. (1975). Women’s expectations for and causal attributions of success and failure. In M. T. S. Mednick, S. S. Tangri and L. W. Hoflinan (Eds), Womon and sohiflemont: Social gtd motivationg analysis (pp. 158-169). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Hair, J., Anderson, R E., Tatham, RL., & Black, WC. (1992). mm with readings. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Ham, Y. (1986). Bylity of education and a teacher. Cheongsa: Kyoyook Publishing Co. Han, C. (1991). As (1 n erel ' nshi etween sire of high school students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Kongju University. Hartley, R E. (1979). Sex role pressures and the socialization of the male child. P h l ' R 5 457-463. Heath, 8. B. (1983). Ways with words: Langoage, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holloway, S. D., Kawasaki, K., Hess, R. D., & Azuma, H. (1986). Causal attributions by Japanese and American mothers and children about performance in mathematics. In mational ou of P cholo 21, 269-286. Hsu, F. L. K. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A. J. Marsella, G. De Vos, & F. L. K. Hsu, (Eds), Culture and self (pp. 24-55). London: Tavistock. Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Jopmal of Reggtoh in Personaliy, 22, 17-36. Kang, S. (1987). Enhancement of physical goocation god assiments, Paper presented in the 6’” international sport science conference seminar. Kawano, R ( 1992). A to -cul tr 3 an e h l betw n Ja an Am ri en . Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State University. Kim]. H. (1991). W. Chinku: Doseo Publishing Co. Kinr, J . K. (1987). A st d n hi h 13 cut ’ . Unpublished master’s thesis, Korea University Graduate Studies. Klinger, E. & McNelley, F. W. (1969). Fantasy need achievement and performance: A role analysis. Psychological Review. 76. 574-591. Klopf, D. W. & Park, MS. (1982). Cross-cultural communication: An introduction to the firndamenm. Seoul: Han Shin Publishing Co. Kukla, A (1972). Foundations of an attributional theory of performance. Psychologioal Review. 79. 454-470. Kukla, A (1978). An attributional theory of choice. In L. Berkowitz (Ed), Advanm in oxmrimental social psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press. Lewis, C. (1984). Cooperation and control in Japanese nursery schools. M Education Review. 28. 69-84. Lipset, S. M. (1963). The first new niation. New York: Basic Books. Maccoby, E., & Jacklin, C. (1974). Th; psyohology of sox differences. Stanford, California: Standford University Press. Maehr, M. L. (1974). Culture and achivement motivation. Amorican Psychologist, 29, 887-896. Maehr, M. L. (1978). Sociocultural origins of achievement motivation. In D. Bar-Ta] and L. Saxe (Eds), Soda! psyohology of education: Theogt god rgsooroh (pp. 205- 224). New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Maehr, M. L. and Nicholls, J. G. (1980). Culture and achievement motivation: A second look. In N. Warren (Ed), Studies in cross-cultural pgchology (Vol. 2, pp. 221- 267). New York: Academic Press. Markus, HR, & Kitayama, S. (1990). Qulmrs ad omotion; Tho role of othor-focused emotioos. Paper presented at the 98"ll Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston. Markus, H. R, & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Irnplicaitons for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychologists; Review, 28, 224-253. McClelland, D. C. (1958). Methods of measunng human motivation. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed) WM 7-42) Princeton Van Nostrand McClelland, DC. (1961). The schieying misty. New York: Free Press. McClelland, D. C. & Winter, D. G. (1969). Motivatm’ mnomio oohievmont. New York: Free Press. Miller, D. T. (1976). Ego-involvement and attributions for success and failure. M Pmnalig Ed Social Psychology, 34, 901-906. Miller Lite Report (1983). On American attitudes toward sports. Milwaukee: Miller Brewing Co. Nicholls, J. G. (1972). Creativity in the person who will never produce anything original and usefirl: The concept of creativity as a normally distributed trait. Amorican mamas]. 717-727. Nicholls, J. G. (1975). Causal attributions and other achievement-related cogrritions: efforts of task outcomes, attainment value and sex. MW ' P h l 31 379-389. Nicholls, J. G. (1976a). Efi‘ort is virtuous, but it’s better to have ability: Evaluative responses to perceptions of effort and ability. Wham m, 306-315. Nicholls, J. G. (1976b). When a scale measures more than its name denotes: The case of the Test Anxiety Scale for children. MW Psychology, 44, 976-985. Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perception of own attainment, and the understanding that dificult tasks require more ability. W8W814 OChSWE.(1988) ‘i'l: _{Zdi‘fi‘ ‘H‘flmn 1-11L a“ l:iti.', Oil 0(30 WM. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G., & Tannenbaunr, P. (1957). Tho onsmment of mm‘ 3. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Osgood. C. E. Miron, M.. & May. W. (1975). WWW mog_ni_ng, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press,. Osborn, M. (1976). Qrientstiops to rhotoriool style. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc. Pafi’enbarger, R S., Hyde, RT., Wing, A L., & Hsieh, C. (1986). Physical activity, all- cause mortality, and longevity of college alumni. New England loomal of M'oino, 314, 605-613. Palmer, F. R (1981). So_rr_rsr_rtics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 90 Park, K. & Shin, M. (1991). High school stodents’ gross mo soicido. Presented in Korean Psychology Conference. Powell, B. S. & Powell, A G. (1983). For girls, school of their own. Independent School, 43, 55-58. Powell, K. E., Thompson, P.D., Caspersen, C.J., & Kendrick, J. S. (1987). Physical activity and the incidence of coronary heart disease. Annoat Review of Pohlio Health, 8, 253-287. Raynor, J. O. (1969). Future orientation and motivation of immediate activity: An elaboration of the theory of achievement motivation. whologigl Rog ow, 76, 606-610. Roberts, G. (1993). Motivation in sport: Understanding and enhancing the motivation and achievement of children. In R N. Singer, M. Murphey & K. L. Tennant (Eds), Hgdbook of research on smrt psychology (pp. 405-420). New York: Macmillan. Roberts, G. C. (1978). Children’s assignment of responsibility for winning and losing. In F. Smoll & R. Smith (Eds), Psychological perspectives in youth smrts (pp. 145- 171). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Roberts, G. C. & Duda, J. (1984), Motivation in sport: The mediating role of perceived ability. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 312-324. Roberts, G. C. & Pascuzzi, D. L. (1979). Causal attributions to explain winning and losing in sport environments: Theoretical implications. Mm Psyohology, 1, 203-211. Ruhly, S. (1976) Qfientations to intercultural communication. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc. Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. New York: Random House. Salili, F. & Maehr, M. L. (1975). A floss-ooltthal guysis of sohiflemoht-relatfl mm. Unpublished research report, University of Illinois at Urbana Charnpaign, Illinois. Sallis, J. F., Patterson, T.L., Buono, M.J., & Nader, PR (1988). Relation of cardiovascular fitness and physical activity to cardiovascular disease in children and adults. Joumgl of Epidm'ology, 127, 933-941. Sarnovar, L. A, Porter, R. E., & Jain, N. C. (1981). Undemding International W. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. 91 Santrock, J. W. (1981). Adolescence. Dubuque, IA: Wn. C. Brown Company Publishers. Scanlan, T. K. (1982). Social evaluation: A key development element in the competition process. In R. Magill, M. Ash, & F. Smoll (Eds), Children in sport (pp. 138-152). Charnpaigrr, IL: Human Kinetics. Seligrnan, C.R, Tucker, G. R, & Lambert, W.E. (1972) The efi‘ects of speech style and other attributes on teachers’ attitudes toward pupils. Langoage in Society, 1, 131- 42. Shimahara, N. K. (1986). The cultural basis of student achievement in Japan. Comparative Educotion. 22. 1o19-26. Slobin, D. I. (1971). Psycholinguistics Berkely: University of California. Snider, J. G & Osgood, C. E. (1969). Semgtio differontial technique: A sourcehook. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Sohn, D. (1977). Afi‘ect-generating powers of effort and ability: self attributions of academic success and failure. Joumsl of Educotional Psychology, 69, 500-505. Steinberg, D. D. (1982). P3 holin istics: a min and worl . Longrnan: London and New York. Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S., & Stigler, J. W. (1986). Mathmatics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American children. Science. 231. 693 -699. Stewart, E. C. Americon Cultural patterrg: A cross-cultural perspective. Pittsburgh: intercultural Communications Network, 1972. Stitt, B. A (1988). Building gender fairness in schools. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press. Streiner, D. L. (1994). Research method in psychiatry. Canadion Journol of Psyflstg, 19, 135-140. Tanaka, Y., Oyama, T., & Osgood, C. E. (1963). A cross-culture and cross-concept study of the generality of semantic spaces. Joumd of Vemg Learning and yethal _B_ohsv_io_r,l, 392-405. Triandis, H. C. (1972). Tho ohflysis of subigive culture. New York, NY: J. “filey Publishing. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in difi’ering cultural contexts. IjuohologioQReview. 96. 506-520. 92 Triandis, H. C., Kilty, K. M., Shanmuganr, A. V., Tanaka, Y., & Vassiliou, V. (1977). Cognitive structures and the analysis of values. In Triandis, H. C. (Ed. ). mo Ahslysis of Subjective Culture (pp. 181-261). New York, NY: J. Wiley Publishing. Tulkin, S. R (1972). An analysis of the concept of cultural deprivation. Devolopmental P chol 6, 326-339. United States Public Health Service (1991). Healthy people 2000. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Verofi’, J. (1969). Social comparison and the development of achievement motivation. In C. P. Smith (Ed), Achievement-reLated motives in Childfl (pp. 321-333). Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation and the educational process. Review of Educotionfl Reggch, 42, 203-215 Weiner, B. (1974). Achivement motivation as conceptualized by an attribution theorist. In B. Weiner (Ed), Attribution thgh'y odd achivment motivotion. New York: General Learning Press. Weiner, B. (1979) A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. J oornfl of Edocational Pachology, 71, 3-25. Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A, Reed, L., Rest, S. & Rosenbaunr, R (1971). Perceiving the causes of success and failure. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, and B. Weiner (Eds), Attribution: Perceiving the mot behavior. Morristown, N. J .: General Learning Press. White, R W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psyohological Review. 66. 297-333. Won, H. & Lee, M (1987). High school students’ stress, Joumaj of Korm Experiments! Pachology, 6, 22-32. Wood, S. (1991). Why Japanese kids are smarter? Child, 11, 142-145 Yoon, Y. (1993). An analysis on physioal; oducation sdministrotion state of the physioot education teacheps. Unpublished thesis, Korea Kyowon University. APPENDICES APPENDIX A OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE STUDIES University Committee on Runudummhmg Human Subjects «mama Michigan State University 225 Administration Building East Lansing, Michigan «wands 5177355-2180 FAO(.517fl336-117I MSU ,5 an allumahve—xfloq MICHIGAN STATE lJ hi I V’ E I! S I 1' Y May 19, 1994 TO: INWHA LEE 1 IN SPORTS CIRCLE RE: IRB’: 94-243 TITLE: ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF SELF-ESTEEM FOR AMERICAN AND KOREAN ADOLESCENT ATHLETES REVISION REQUESTED: N/A CATEGORY: 1—c APPROVAL DATE: 05/18/94 The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjecte'(UCRIHS) review of this project is complete. I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. herefore, the UCRIHS approved this project including any revision listed above. RENEWAL: REVISIONS: paoaiaus/ cannons: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to continue a project be ond one year must use the green renewal form (enclosed with t e original agproval letter or when a project is renewed) to seek u ate certification. There is a maximum of four such expedite renewals seible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond the time need to submit it again or complete reView. UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, rior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at the time o renewal, please use the green renewal form. To revise an approved protocol at any 0 her time during the year, send your written request to the CRIBS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRB I and title. Include in our request a description of the change and any revised ins ruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. Should either of the followin arise during the course of the work, investigators must noti y UCRIHS romptly: {1) roblems (unexpected Side effects, comp aints, e c.)_involv ng uman subjects or (2) changes in the research enVironment or new information indicating greater risk to the human sub ects than eXisted when the protocol was previously reViewed an approved. If we can be of any future hel lease do not hesitate to contact us at (517)35 Sincerely, DEW:pjm David E. Wright, Ph. UCRIHS Chair 5-2180 or sax (517)35é- 171. CC: DEBORAH L FELTZ APPENDIX B Informed Consent Form Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science Michigan State University Investigator: Inwha Lee I have fieely consented to allow my students to participate in a study conducted by Inwha Lee, doctoral student in the Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science at Michigan State University. The purpose of this study is to examine whether there are any cultural and sex differences on self-esteem between American and Korean adolescents both in sport and in academic domains. I understand that my students are free to refirse to answer certain questions or discontinue their participation at any time without penalty. I understand that if they choose to participate in this study, it will take about 20 nrinutes or less to complete the questionnaires. I understand that my students’ identity will remain anonymous in any report of research findings. 1 agree participate voluntarily in this research. fi/m / 71/ bate / irector’s signature I, the undersigned, have defined and fully explained the study to the above subjects. Investigator’s signature Date APPENDIX C 95 Appendix C Demographic Questionnaire Instructions: Please check the appropriate answer or fill in the required information. 1. Gender: Male Female 2. Age: 3. Grade: 4. Ethnicity: Caucasian Asian Afiican-American Native American Hispanic Other 5. Experience of Sport(s) A) What sport(s) have you participated in this past year: B) Which level of sports have you participated in: 1) Varsity_ 2) Junior Varsity_ 3) Intramural___ 4) Unorganized_ C) Number of years you participated in sports: 1) None_ 2) Less than 1 year_ 3) 1 year-2 years _ 4) More than 2 years__ 6. Where would you classify yourselfin terms of your academic standing? 1) Top 1/3 of class __ 2) Middle of class 1/3_ 3) Bottom of classl/3____ 7. How many hours do you spend in extracurricular activities? per day APPENDIX D F1 p.091? 96 Appendix D American Questionnaire 1 Please provide answers to the following four questions. Your answers do not need to be in order of importance. This is not a test of intelligence and there are no right or wrong answers. There is no time limit. Take all the time you need and give us answers that are important to you. Please fill the blanks as many as possible. Your answers are anonymous. Do not put your name on this questionnaire. 1. Please make a list of everything you can think of about yourself which causes you to feel that you can do well in your school subjects. 97 2. Please make a list of everything you can think of about yourself which causes you to feel that you would do badly in your school subjects. 98 3. Please make a list of everything you can think of about yourself which causes you to feel that you can do well in sports. 99 4. Please make a list of everything you can think of about yourself which causes you to feel that you would do badly in sports. APPENDIX E 100 Appendix E Korean questionare I * OIEII fi-fi-fi 243'. ti’dOl eli‘iiflf 143801) tillii’lml 93M 4421*].9— (71%| E-E' Vi) 1. Add = ’d__ ol— 2. as 1&5 : 197( is: 3. em = __ 4. {sleet tilt} an Jiiicteil Eel ole). 3:? fleet! airfield 24°] Riel-17}? e Stet-:1 = A) SSS-5i B) 01?). tit-€94 WM] assessors? 1) sisters-.3 2) stir. Ararat—i 3) Idiom til fl¢i __ 4) 3331145121 tria- Ste-ii (oils S01. ail-“+7113! 41:24:12.: Jtin-ii 441-1 Sari. ei—‘rl %’—> C) #121 3:18 Eliot-i:— ‘i id 1&9} scientist-177i? 1) I'd eloi 2) 1‘6. 01):} '“ 2‘5 Ole} __ 3) 2a ot’e‘ __ 5. Oriel-Ea] j‘l’il-‘ll “ii-831% Q ‘15“ 2i<~l°l °ltloll Silt}?— ’dZISI’sli-IWI? l) Iii-0M ’ei-iti 1/3011 4?? __ 2) tIioll/‘i Si! 1/3 __ 3) ”Edi/‘1 3M 1/3 s. entertains-es tier-s- enin iris.- AI {is suns}: WWI __ A121 . 101 e that elfll afiell tileli ilr; evils. $440!? ’e’i'iflt’l )3thng @0114 {EH £5141 OIZ‘QE- ZI-‘s‘Eléél—l ’8‘? It: 3.2M 93.x“: 71°] Well-IE}. E Alzl°l {WEN 211‘: 325 ell—N77} flfltl dial-ELIE! éfioitll "Szlol-r‘f 715-8 51-?- al°l #41. "dEZlol it! J‘l7l °IH all] “It‘ll 9131-51-0] Welt! emi. 1. era-s zreloi 01%?" are tins-es a ti +- 9.11151. amiss _—._ sees as: Literals. (treat azure:- crs 7pm so] wraith-11:}. ) 102 2. tiss- zisor tin-see is n21 E-eir‘seli 03er nine- arses Ee- Lifieinilfi. (nasal snore.- urs 7m: ate) Marconi.) 103 3. use antral oisrr are see ’51 e 4= 31cm Elliott—2) :L ans-s Ee- western. (tract azure nus 7P5?! BM miner—m.) 104 4. tew—3.- zitioi see a six] net-sci nine ore-es as wanna. (erect anus are nee-vs ate) Maison.) APPENDIX F 105 Appendix F Frequency of Responses for American and Korean Adolescents Table 13 F rmoonoy of Responses of Ameriosh Males for Succoss in School W W Wm Study 36 Outgoing 2 Friends 18 Still can 2 Do homework 16 Participate 2 Smart 15 Encouragement 2 Attention in class 14 Asking question 2 Self-confidence 14 Have a goal 1 Good teacher 12 Best education 1 Excited about school 9 Mental health 1 Play sports 8 Don’t do drugs 1 Sleep 7 Organization 1 Use time efi‘ectively 6 Fun 1 Good books 5 Hobbies 1 Family support 5 Try 5 Like to learn 4 Good explanation 4 Good grades 4 Achievement 4 Discipline 3 Have a good idea 3 Knowing the subject 3 106 Table 14 Frooomoy of Responses of American Femalos for Suflss in Sohool W Fruit-ati mam Study Want to do well Smart 29 Goals Teachers 17 Surroundings Interest 16 Take notes Motivation 15 Attend classes Concentration 15 Discipline Attention in class 13 Play sports Fun 11 Self-esteem Do homework 11 Prepare Outgoing 1 1 Dedication Good grades 11 Perfectionistic Friends 10 Caring Happy 10 Good study habits Determination 10 Energetic Parents 10 Like to learn Think 9 Competitive Self-confidence 8 Positive encouragement Positive 8 Good listening skill Working with others 8 Sleep enough Family support 8 Eat well Do the best 6 No stress Organized 6 Like to push myself Friendly 6 Like class 6 Nice 5 1:: H—NNNNNwwwwuwwAAh-bbmmmg Table 15 107 W of Korea_rn Mdos for Sumess in School Wm Attention in class Preview & review Efi‘ort Reduce sleeping Concentration Good fiiends No TV & nintendo games Time management Increase studying hours Surroundings Health Study for oneself Follow plans No distracting thoughts Regular life habits Reduce school class hours Practice solving problems No chattering Teachers’ concern Increase free-style study hours School facility Patience Co-ed schools No Billiards 1:“me 50 42 32 25 21 l4 14 13 13 12 12 10 UIMO\O\O\\J\JQWOO\O\O Improve education style No girl fiiends Interest Ask questions Diligence Have tutoring Reduce class size Start class late Use various textbooks Without parents’ expectation Open library always Teacher’s ability Rest with music Proper tension Enhance confidence Pray Make up for poor subjects Can-do spirit Sound mind No drinking No smoking No beeper lg ————Nnnunwwwweeeavtmuiutuié 108 Table 16 Frmogoy of Responses of Korm F omales for Success in School We Fm 312m Teachers 55 Interest Preview & Review 50 Increase studying hours Good attitude 44 No distraction Efi'ort 34 Enjoy hobby Good Friends 21 Reduce class size Parents’ care 19 Abolish exam Surroundings 19 Reading Classroom atmosphere 19 Playing Smart (IO) 18 Background No push & expectation 17 Big library Concentration 16 Coed Tutoring 16 Faith Good mood 15 Have dormitory Reduce sleeping 14 Homework Rest with music 13 Increase colleges Confidence 13 Have school bus School facilities 12 Responsibility No TV 12 Selected class Attain goals 11 Live with mother erlingness 11 Health 1 1 Setting goals 9 Patience & endurance 9 No stress 9 Steady study 9 in flwthNNwwakMMMMMO‘QWmWE 109 Table 17 Eroqoopoy of Responses of American Males for Failure in School W quenoy Wordslghgsg Don’t study 30 Being around bad people Lose interest 23 Procrastinate Bad teacher 19 Social life Skip classes 9 A lot of class Lack of time 8 Lack of understanding Drugs 7 Lack of organization Laziness 6 Lack of discipline Friends 5 Do sports too much Bad study habits 5 Get distracting Too much work to do 5 Not ask question Talk too much 5 Drink Don’t sleep 5 Sleep Don’t pay attention 5 Watch TV Low self-esteem 4 Noisy classes Fl] HHNNNNNNNwwww-hE Table 18 110 Ermogoy of Rosmnses of Amoriooh Fo_rr_1alos for F m ro in Sohml Write Frames! MNWh Teachers 18 Too many activities Skip classes 12 No concentration Lose interest 10 Poor time management Stress(pressure) 10 Distracted Low self-esteem 9 Not happy Don’t study 9 Social life Talk too much 9 Lack of understanding Procrastinate 9 Problems Don’t do homework 8 Misunderstanding Don’t care 8 No motivation Laziness 8 Daydream Too much work to do 7 No help available Tired 7 No sleep Friends 6 Not disciplined Problems at home 5 Job Bad attitude 5 Bad grades Sickness 5 No goals No attention in class 5 Bad people a: Nnnwwwwuwueeeeaaeag Table 19 111 Frogoongt of Rosponses of Korean Males for Failure in School Mm Friends Sleeping Surroundings Girl fiiends TV, Vrdeo Billiards Distracting thoughts Nintendo games Lack of will Lack of efl’ort Classroom environment Too much homework No attention in class Health Lack of concentration Teacher’s incompetence Smoking Poor school facility No interest Class hours are too long Social activity Family background Frans-s! MM 40 31 28 27 25 23 22 21 20 19 16 l3 13 12 12 11 10 9 9 9 8 7 Over-burden of subjects Teachers’ too much push Stress of college entrance Laziness Money Study No preview & review Personality Bad educational system Bad habit Desire for play Drinking Violent teachers Lack of practice Stress of interpersonal relationship Expectation Wasting time Love to exercise Chattering No communication with teachers Non co-ed school Skepticism E ~H~NNNNNwwwwhbhmmmmmo-r 112 Table 20 f R f K r F f r F ' in S h 1 Minnie Frame! Maritime 17mm Teachers’ poor ability 50 Stress of study 6 Sleep 45 Hate some subjects 6 Distracting thoughts 40 Careless parents 6 Friends 39 Lack of confidence 5 Lack of efl‘ort 35 Wrong way of study 5 TV, Video 25 Concerns for the firture 5 Lack of concentration 24 Bad health 5 School and home atmosphere 23 Poor school facility 5 No attention in class 22 Too many subjects 5 Push & expectation 21 Care of appearance 4 Laziness 19 Concern of other people’s view 4 Class structure 16 Teachers’ discrimination for students 4 Lack of will 16 Mistrust of school 4 Personality 16 No study room 4 Stress of college entrance 15 Competition 4 Not smart 15 Don’t follow plans 4 Surroundings 14 Lack of adjustment 4 Boy fiiends l3 Frequent exam 3 Lack of study 11 Poor notes 2 Chattering 11 Memory capacity 2 Don’t use time efi‘ectively 10 Extracurricular activities 2 Lack of patience 7 Lack of time 1 Bad mood 7 Uniform 1 Lack of interest 6 Read non-textbooks 1 Siblings 6 113 Table 21 r n f Re f Am 1i f r u in W Frequent 33.0mm Practice 34 Taller Good coaches 15 Leadership Athletic ability 13 Pride Attitude 12 Skill Good people 11 Cheer Strong 11 Drive Self-esteem 10 Fun Like sports 10 Motivated Smart 7 Pay attention Speed 6 Sportsmanship Weightlifting 4 Don’t worry Physical fitness 3 Will Work hard 3 Competitive Determination '11 ~H-~NNNNNNNNwE 114 Table 22 Froquenoy of Responses of Americh Femoges for Success in Sports Mme Frances! mm Practice 25 Dedicated Athletic ability 17 Good exercise Good attitude l6 Energetic Team work 15 Speed Participation 12 Parents Work hard 11 Don’t play sports Confidence 9 Like sports Do my best 8 Good coaches Motivation 8 Coaches’ encouragement Outgoing 8 Practice Fun 7 Not anxious Good at sports 7 Sportsmanship Physical fitness 6 Taller Competitive 6 Will Winning 6 1:: flNNNMAhA-fikcAMMME Table 23 Fr n f Re Mme Regular exercise Practice Efi‘ort Facilities Athletic ability Basic training Available time Basic knowledge Increase PE classes Interest Nutrition Equipment erl Active participation Parents’support Taller Modeling good player Lose weight Endurance Teachers’ guide Hold sports contests Fm 36 27 25 15 14 l4 l3 13 11 ll 10 wA-hA-h-BQGQQ 115 fr sin Elm Early morning exercise Economic condition Watch many games Increase opportunity Develop skills Not exercise too much Do proper exercise for my body Reduce study Team work Patience Fun Join exercise club Sound mind Courage Confidence Diligence Reduce sleeping Run hard Change school policy for sports E Ht—l—II—IHI—II—IHH—iNNNNNquw Table 24 Fr 11 f Re fKr Fm 17mm Available time Athletic ability Equipment Economic condition Regular exercise Facilities Efi‘ort Taller Interest Practice Lose weight Good clothes People to play with Teachers’ guide Increase PE class 37 31 31 3O 28 25 23 22 21 20 17 l7 17 13 12 116 frc in Mme Diligence Health Active participation Nutrition If we don’t study too much Confidence Patience Parents’ support Basic training Participate in exercise club If someone sees me exercising More opportunity Praise Reduce sleeping Competitive If a fiiend helps 1!} i—ap-Ir—Ir—I: coo-— HHHNNNNACAQOO‘O 117 Table 25 Fr fR es fAmeri Mal frFailr in rts Mme Framer _9___|W rds/Ph mentions! No practice 20 Don’t concentrate 1 Bad coaches 17 No ability 1 Weak 15 No spirit 1 Friends 10 Injured 1 Bad attitude 7 Short 1 No union 6 Move too much 1 Drugs 5 Competition 1 Stupid practice 5 Lack of experience 1 Bad places to play 5 No weightlifiing 4 Out of shape 4 Don’t care 4 Do not know rules 3 Lack of interest 3 Smoking 3 Playing with bad people 3 Don’t like sports 3 Never try 3 Give up 2 Not confident 2 118 Table 26 Frequency of Responses of American Females for Failure in Sports mam Frequent! Bad attitude 25 Bad coaches 20 No practice 17 No interest 16 Injury 14 Don’t play sports 13 Laziness 10 Temper Low self-esteem Bad loser Fatigue Bad sportsmanship No union Weak Too competitive Bad mood Lack of strength Friends Give up No spirit Short No ability u—runwhbmqeoooxososoxo Table 27 119 Froguenoy of Responses of Kom Males for Failuro in Sports W No available time Poor health Stress fiom study Lack of facility Lack of athletic ability Physical condition(short) Lack of will Lack of interest Lack of efi’ort No practice Poor environment Fear of injury No money No instructor Do not run well Hate sports No participation Long school hours Bad eyes Smoking Shyness Laziness Parents’ objection Lack of PE class leoflrflme 27 15 l4 14 13 13 mnwuwuwwwwwwbmqqqq Not diligent Irregular life habit Drinking Low self-esteem No concentration Meet competitive partner Friend Lots of homework Bad eating habit Sleeping Mistakes Games & contest Lack of courage Lack of experience Arrogance m r—o—rr—bs—I—nt—rt—r—au—nr—tr—Ir—ONNNE 120 mm Farmers! Don’t want to spend time for sports 4 Body doesn’t work well like mind No fiiends to do sports with Fear of injury Sex role Don’t do well Poor health Long school hours No power No choice for sports items Bad teacher No firn H—r—rt—rpuwwwhb Table 28 Froquency of Responses of Korean Females for Failure in Sports mums Frequent No available time 70 Lack of facility 33 Lack of athletic ability 32 Hate sports 32 Lack of equipment 25 Stress fi'om study 23 Tired 20 Lack of flexibility 18 Social despise of sports 18 Physical condition (Short) 17 Laziness 13 Fat 13 Parents’ objection 12 Lack of PE class 12 Too hard to play 9 No practice 9 No interest 8 Lack of knowledge 8 Lack of efi‘ort 7 No appropriate sports items 6 Lack of confidence 6 Hate sun 5 Sleeping 5 APPENDIX G 121 Appendix G American Questionnaire II 1. How important are the following things in making you feel that you can do well in NNNNNNr—r—ru—rr—ri—Ir—It—or—Ir—ts— MANN—'CQWQQMJBUN—‘C PP‘SQS‘PPN?‘ your school subjects. Please rate each one on a scale of /(very important) to (least important). 1=Very Important Study: Smart: Teachers: Motivation: Concentration Attention in class: Fun Do homework: Outgoing: . Good grades . Friends: . Self-confidence . Excited about school . Play sports . Sleep . Family support . Liking (Interest) . Use time effectively - Happy . Determination . Parents . Think . Good books . Try . Like to learn _rrpn—s g—ay—ap—sp—s Hflflfl r—rrs—s—sp-s NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwuwuw A-b-b-hb-hA-h-h##AAAAAA-fib-fibbbhb MMMMMMMMMMU‘MMMMMMMMMMMMMM O5QGGOOOSGONONONO‘00005GGOO50QGGCI 7=Least Important \J\IQQQQQQQQQNQQQQQQQQQQQQQ 122 2. How important are the following things in making you feel that you would do badly in your scth subjects. Please rate each one on a scale of /(very important) to (least important). 1=Very important 7=Least important 1. Don’t study 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Lose interest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Skip classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Lack of time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Low self-esteem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Drugs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Laziness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Talk too much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. Procrastinate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Don’t do homework I 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Don’t care 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Bad study habits l 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Too much work to do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Tired 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. Problems at home 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. Stress(Pressures) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Don’t sleep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. Don’t pay attention 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. Distracted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. Social life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. Bad attitude 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. Lack of understanding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. Sick 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 123 3. How important are the following things in making you feel that you can do well in sports. Please rate each one on a scale of /(very important ) to (least important). 1=Very important 7=Least important 1. Practice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Good coaches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Attitude 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Good people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Strong 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Self-esteem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Athletic ability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Smart 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Speed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. Like sports 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Team work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Participation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Confidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Do my best 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Motivation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Outgoing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. Fun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. Good at sports 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Physical fitness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. Work hard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. Dedicated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. Taller 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. Winning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. Weightlifting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. Competitive l 2 3 4 5 6 7 124 4. How important are the following things in making you feel that you would do badly in sports. Please rate each one on a scale of / (very important) to ( least important). 1= Very important =Least important 1. No practice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Bad coaches 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Weak 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Bad attitude 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. No union 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Too competitive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Drug 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Stupid practice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. Bad places to play 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Not liking(no interest) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Injury 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Laziness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Temper 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Low self-esteem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Bad loser l 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. Fatigue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. Bad sportsmanship 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. No weightlifiing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. Out of shape 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. Don’t care 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. Smoking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. Don’t play sports 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. Don’t know the rules 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. Bad mood I 2 3 4 5 6 7 APPENDIX H 125 Appendix H Korean questionare II * °lell E84 8L?— i348°) ell‘iiili- 4330)) title“) 93M $444.9. H N :5 (719,] EE- Vi) "d‘fi=‘sl_____ °=l___ so VIE : 197( )‘d .‘i‘d=___ -&-%°l| ti!!! 73% ziusr so are. s5 iris-or seiner are] 9161-1771? sans: A) org-age B) 01'?! res-21 sis-eon deities-14771? 1) training 2) tin Jens-4:; __ 3) *lieh-I it tier-i ___.. 4) £eiii£12l aire- r’t-Fil (eilr! Eel. Silvia) Trellis; tint! We} as. Bi? ‘5') C) e12) {HE teats i! is so antiserum? 1) 11:1 ole} __ 2) 11a 01):} ~ 21:1 018} ______ 3) 2a 01),; __— . °=lel'E-°l thl-el ”318318 E llEll J‘l’tlfil 01510" 4315}?— annanni 1) naorn an user so __ 2) tiaoiiAi ea 1/3 __ a) nearer are m ___.. ._ . Jimfi‘flli‘fi-gi tea-s ‘dnii-l Bil—3- 421% 5031477}? Well __ All} 126 r. nes— “zraoi erases so «- rticr' are: zines are-cit groin ties) Lééel sum zidtlell satin one 232011 are} 2i as nici slain]: 3.7181 «was. (1=Dll-$- éfi. 4=.'i!.-§. 7=fi§ 91 €28.) oils. seas. ole) 9.131. ‘3‘3: i‘i’i‘l‘é. 42101 es. he. til-1L. #441373. 5111:.) ire (1.0.) {- Alzl 1&8: 2170‘. . H8142 AR! til. . as saint. . #3212) as. . 73371 title)... . ail E4171. . ¢¢_§_ =84. . all!) 11%).. . nigh-i tit-l. . $43- 71%. . it'd 81:5. . MEI Set. . we) snide) sir-i=5. . name 1836?}. . the era. . Item. . atlas. PPNP’P‘PP’E"? NMNNr—sr—sr—rr—tr—tr—sr—tr—r—r—n wmuoomqamewmwo N .5 r—ss—ss—ss—sr—aHHs—ss—ss—sp—ss—rj—ar—st—sr—sr—st—ss—ru-spus—sr—sr—sp—s NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN murmur.)wwwwwwuwuwwwuwwwuwww hibrhrhshrbrhhrbrbrhrbrbobrbrhrbbhrhbsbrhhrb churchmenmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mosaic:osmosoaozaaozmozoaoaoaozosoaosoaoaasoso: ~1~r~1~rqqqqqqqqquuqqqqqqqq’qu N 0" 11. 9939999.”? ngmwws—r—Iunmuuuur—n are gob-omenqpmrr-uN—io 127 tl’iir‘i- xl’tlol “ii-84% )‘E-oh‘atll E‘B‘é “Wilt- ttfiv-‘il MEN Written anti-i siren est! 73501] ale} 2} sonic} E-‘lelnli £713“ #fl’ii. (1=Dfl-?- €23. 4=£%. 7=£§ 21’ éfi.) ail-TL nil—Eon. {it"s seen. ’3. reali-4. it'd. T.V.. n11:13.. see-res. el’stl-‘F (3.1a). saws . 441873. . +2101 ass. . our 71:11. . elzlir-ai. . new. . Its-Lei M 5:471. 2%. . ‘Ffi‘ilel‘Elfl. . 41113414. . 444%.)?! (458732” . thléEell—é. . 823. 217:}. . SDI-F4. . ‘élell. . Diel7l Lli'lkl. s—sp—sr—sy—an—au—ss—ss—sr—sur—sr—sr—ss—sHp‘Hp‘HHHHH—sr‘ NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN wuuumuuuuwwwwuumcommentary-scout» hob-bahhbhhhbbhhhhbbrbhhbhhhh crater-tarmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm QQGGGQGQGOGGQGmQQGO’O’O’QQIO’Q ‘1Qflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflfl 128 III. ”8% “4410] SHE‘S it Q + 915i" its“: 21414.13 ZbEF-il 9.10M BPS-SI Mid Quit-l Zlélflell Sufi-till €29.31 78501 Eli?) Zl 'tilnlti Elelnli £7)?“ #42143. (1=UII-$- %-.9.. 4:12.38". 7=i§ 21' éfl.) 1. fi7l'i”. 338). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. $56141 at ’35:. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Elsi—kl: {HE-Ea. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. 41210) 316151. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. JSmelt-I as. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. 7311140421. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. seed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.fl&.wfi%d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. saints! £5». 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. are. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 n.fld§. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. alter/~12.i reel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. wit-alt! tinted. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. new-1:4 71$. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. its unis. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. ea— fiit. 41st. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. M *1: $1414 716:. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. #316121 one. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. #215111. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 m.aenn. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 m.%%flfl. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. 212]. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. 5.181% was. Elam. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. diesel 215. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. 21431 tie). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IV. PPNP’P‘PPP’?‘ NNNNNNHHHHHHh‘t—IHH mean—omaqmmbume—o 129 tie-a- zitroi .25-s i—ePeeil ages mini-2 crest 3.4.501 airmen tram 25.25121 isms 23241 trial 21 'iilniti Sleinli 3127181 #21413. (1=nll-?- éfi. 4:3.‘5‘. 7=§i 9.! éfi.) emu sir-Jeans. 42.101 new. 4111) at 79.4. an. 3571471 our. .253 store. sum seen. seine. are] (2173) its. Héédé. . Eel es (ii-S’s 81%). . see ‘21 ell/:1. . 5:5 4‘ 11E. . 2111 #4. . 41AM 5d (9)). . 4131421 rte-5734185. . 1373. “RH-4. . alienate) atoll-l. . 712.214. . 15458141. . #5 our. . Blame} Stir-M. . E 3101*]. . 7ienes ’4'? tie). . Sis-814261 1+?- ilieini. . 21 3124113. t—ot-iHs—It—It—It—IHHHt—ir—tt—HHHHHHHt—IHHHH NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN commonest.)mmwmwwwuwuwwuwwwwww rhihrbrhobshsbrbhfihfihhhhhrbhhfibfibh enumerate-rarermmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm O)QGGOGQGQQGQGQGOO’GQQGQOGG \1QVVVQVQVQVQQQVQQQVNVQVQQ 130 Harter ’ s fi-EZI “Li-r.- one new?" 5|. 7] . -'.=- so 5- nsei error ti its szss as 111%( )‘2101 one 3143" “ll-i? 33% "ll-5?- 93% ‘91:} Elli} ' 331:} EEC} ( )( ) 01E ”’85"?- °'I7l*lZl°ll 5H5: RISE-€- itlafl )( ) Eli 3131 7)::— as so} lair—I £45757)! stat It; 31011:}. tit). ’ . ( )( ) ole). erase— 2171 gallel tie these Jfiolt )( ) tie enlists Glitters 1am ctr“: eioliels Irish) 211:}. 91:12) see}. .( )( mansions-253 senses-ss- ()() nil-i- 4: tin). lair—t 8191 a; at tints). 462121 ski—21:1. . ( )t ) 012‘). Willie ‘5“?- zt7l tie rises 217) ( )( ) JKitten Clerk) ennui. Jain} 214101 ennui nil—i- 71101:}. . ( )( ) oi?! W654:- til‘ilfi 11h? was El 13“ )( ) ELIE-ti 9.10141 nit-r- Jail—1 1119.18- tt 4‘— 311:). halt}. . ( )( ) 01‘?! “Write: elem Eh?- ti’zlriri’: Alli-3M )( ) *fliri: €455 El ’8 Q Jail—I W ’8 1311] E- 51713} 9.113131 821111111}. 111-3134 QB}. 131 are are sic) are) 6.( 7.( 8.( 9.( 10.( 11.( 12. ( 13.( 14.( 15.( )1 )( )( )( ) 0):). erase zitio) also) 7).-.1 site as zero: neon train some) titan). ) 01%! 965% tissue-Er it tilt). :ielr.) ) OI“?! ”85% ’47], Eel-q CHE- °I§£Cl 51-5829: Ci 1311—} ii {"1131 841111}. ) 01?); trees urea 217) ziaor urn) assist). :rarur ) om twitt- emote) ennans alien) 1311-} 0131184 elect. ) OI‘E ”iii-1?.- Alli-ii: 0121 711948 ’61 3W E415}. :LalL} ) are nose sire) 621 antidote} me new some). ) 012'); nose #7111420] “H- 213101351. 3:113}. 1311—} ) 01% 985% J4717) ell-9- 8-58 Jrll {It}; 3.177121 :1qu 2145-11). ) 01‘?! ”’85:?- l§3l VIII ’elelloll 91481 tilt). Joli—l are are Bit) are} 51% ”85% 11717} ( )( ) °l§°l H7131 9.1%:- 91% ”633% $011111}. 1:15- tt’séé eta ( )( ) see nil-Y- il 812142 E41111}. Eli-E- ti’eiiE-é- Sell ( )( ) °l°l~§ 91% ill El 4’- 9.15131 ’84") 23ft}. BEE- ‘i’di-E- ‘3“?- ( )( ) zltli°ll tili’ll 'Sii’lltlzl 2145-3}. EIE ‘M’li’é 7151i ( )( ) ’J’e‘ i’ll‘ilifi' 21°} ‘d 4‘ 9.11:}. 11h? ”85% a“? ( )( ) AIii-8: HMS ’3 it 4‘ 9.171] 85). are titres es 1 )1 ) 25o) are nearest-I. 31:7. air-sci. CH5- tl’dié- J4717K )( ) 7431913] °Iklzl 3l€:°ltl. Eh?- el’diri’: 25°“ )( ) nil-i- rate it 3131.31 3:11 ti. CHE- tI’Si'E‘ Elli ( )( ) "ar‘F-IIS—l 951.29! 3131 315113}. APPENDIX I 132 Appendix I Harter’s Questionnaire Please decide which kind of teenager is most like you and then decide whether this is only sort of true or really true for you. Thus, for each item, h of fo r n h Really Sort of Sort of Really true true true true for you for you 1. l ] l ] Some teenagers feel that they But are just as smart as others their age. 2.[ ][ ] Someteenagersdoverywell But atallkindsofsports. 3.[ ll ] Someteenagersareoften But disappointed with themselves. 4-l ll 1 Someteeagenarepretty But slowinfinishingtheir schoolwork. 5.| ][ ] Someteenagersthinkthey But coulddowellatjustabout anynewathleticactivity. 6. [ l l ] Some teenagers don’t like But the way they are leading their life. 7.[ ][ ] Someteenagersdoverywell But attheirclasswork. 8. i ] [ ] Some teenagers feel that But theyarebetterthanothers theirageatsports. 9.( ][ ] Someteenagersarehappy But with themselves. 10.[ l [ ] Someteenagers have But trouble figuring out the answers in school ll.[ ][ ] Someteenagersdon’t But dowellatnewoutdoorgames. for you for you Otherteenagersaren’tso [] [] sure and wonder if they are assmart Otherteenagersdon’tfeel [ l [ ] thattheyareverygoodwhenit comestosports. Otherteenagersareprctty [ l l I pleasedwiththemselves. Otherteenagerscando [ l l 1 their school work more quickly. Otherteenagersareafraid [ll ] theymlghtnotdowellata newathleticactivity. Other teenagers do like [ l [ l the way they are leading their life. Otherteenagersdon’tdo [ ][ 1] very well at their classwork. Other teenagers don’t feel [ ] [ ] they can play as well. Otherteenagersareoften [ l [ ] not happy with themselves. Other teenagers almost [ ] [ ] always can figure out the answers. Otherteenagersaregood [ ][ l at new games right away. Really for you 12-I II 115-I ll l4.[ ][ 15-I ll Sort of true for you ] Someteenagerslike But thekindofpersontheyare. ] Some teenagers feel that But they are pretty intelligent ] Someteenagersdonot But feel that they are very athletic. ] Some teenagers are very But happy being the way they are. 133 Sort of Really true true for you for you Otherteenagersoftenwish [ ][ ] theyweresomeoneelse. Otherteenagersquestion [1|] whether they are intelligent. Other teenagers feel that [ ] [ ] they are very athletic. Other teenagers wish [ I [ ] they were different. APPENDIX J 134 Appendix J Factor Analysis for Ethnic Groups in American Sample Table 29 Fagor Loadings of Success in School for (Mm Factor lo ' s Items I II Factor I “Social competence” 7 Fun .72 .02 9 Outgoing .60 .01 11 Friends .59 .07 14 Play sports .50 .02 Factor II “Effort” 8 Do homework .07 .79 6 Attention in class .00 .58 1 Study .02 .54 10 Good grades .07 .40 Eigenvalue 2.58 1.82 Myer—Factor 23.50 1660 Table 30 FctrL' fuccein h fr ' -Am' W Items I II FactorI “E3011” 6 Attention in class .7 5 .07 8 Do homework .74 -.23 1 Study .65 .17 10 Good grades .40 .22 Factor II “Social competence” 11 Friends .07 .70 14 Play sports .09 .58 7 Fun .09 .44 Eigenvalue 2.1 1 1.49 Variance gr Factor 19.2: 13.5 135 Table 31 F actor Loadings of F ailurg in School for Qancasigm F or adin BEL I Factor I “Low efl‘ort” 20 Do not pay attention .82 8 Laziness .79 10 Procrastinate .76 11 Do not do homework .68 13 Bad study habits .68 9 Talk too much .63 2 Lose interest .54 14 Too much work to do .53 Eigenvalue 4.43 Vag'ance per Factor 44.3 Table 32 F r ' f F 'lure in h l f r Afri -Ameri Mg: m I F actor I “Low efl‘ort” 13 Bad study habits .89 11 Do not do homework .85 20 Do not pay attention .84 8 Laziness .84 10 Procrastinate .80 5 Lack of time .78 9 Talk too much .75 16 Tired .71 2 Lose interest .61 14 Too much work to do .60 Eigenvalue 5.98 Wet 59.80 136 Table 33 F r L in s f cc in f r i Factor Loadings hm I II FactorI “Dedication” 3 Attitude .88 .14 6 Self-esteem .86 .14 14 Do my best .86 .01 21 Dedicated .85 .01 13 Confidence .84 .20 15 Motivation .8] .16 20 Work hard .79 .01 Factor 11 “Innate ability” 7 Athletic ability .02 .79 18 Good at sports .07 .77 19 Physical fitness .07 .76 9 Speed .00 .71 5 Strong .19 .52 8 Smart .12 .44 Eigenvalue 6.62 2.73 Vafl'ance per Factor 41.4 17.1 137 Table 34 r ' f u s in f r Afi‘i -Ameri W m I II F actorI “Dedication” 6 Self-esteem .89 .28 13 Confidence .87 .24 14 Do my best .83 .28 3 Attitude .81 .17 20 Work hard .81 .30 12 Participation .81 .29 1 Practice .76 .30 15 Motivation .72 .10 1 1 Team work .70 .34 21 Dedicated .66 .32 Factor 11 “Innate ability” 9 Speed .14 .89 7 Athletic ability .20 .76 8 Smart .17 .59 5 Strong .25 .56 18 Good at sports .27 .47 Eigenvalue 8.40 l .52 Variance oer Factor 52.50 9.50 138 Table 35 Pa rL ' fF'ur in fr au i F Mor Loadings ms I F actor I “Bad attitude” 21 Do not care .94 18 Bad sportsmanship .89 17 Fatigue .80 16 Bad loser .80 24 Do not know rules .72 Eigenvalue 8.00 Vm'ance oor Factor 53.40 Table 36 Foctor Qadings of Failuro in Sports for Afiim-Ameriom mm Items I H Factor I “Bad attitude” , . 18 Bad sportsmanship .83 .25 21 Donot care .81 -.10 22 Smoking .76 .05 16 Bad loser .75 .33 25 Bad mood .73 .19 15 low self-esteem .66 .37 12 Injury .62 .28 17 Fatigue .61 .24 14 Temper .60 .37 24 Do not know rules .50 .38 Factor 11 “Negative environment” 7 Too competitive .24 .67 10 Bad places to play .28 .64 4 Friends -.20 .52 Eigenvalue 6.47 1.27 Motor 43.10 8.50 APPENDIX K 139 Appendix K Means and Standard Deviations for Ethnic Groups Table 37 Success and Failure in School and Sport Effog Social gomoetenco Attituogafi‘eot Group N M SD M SD M SD Sawing Caucasian 87 2.08 .84 3.23 1.19 2.47 1.06 Afiican-American 83 1.79 .78 3.31 1.28 2.28 .90 F fl ore in Sohool Low efl‘ofl M SD Caucasian 2.51 1.03 Afiican-American 2.91 1.51 .S_ucc_esLin_Sm_rt§ D i in h_natem M SD M SD Caucasian 1.47 .78 2.37 .99 African-American 1.45 .86 2.24 1.1 1 F ' in ft Bod mitudo Nogato'vo mvironment M SD M SD Caucasian 2.42 1.42 3.35 1.30 Afiicg—American 2.6L 1.47 3.60 1.49 APPENDIX L 140 Appendix L Intercorrelations Among Factors Table 38 Intormrrolatiooa gong Factors for Saccoaa in School Factors I II III IV Americans I 1.00 11 .03 1.00 1H .34 .22 1.00 Koreans I 1.00 11 .13 1.00 H1 .04 .17 1.00 IV .20 407 .06 1.00 Table 39 Intercorrelations among Factors for Failure in _Sohml Factors 1 H III Amorioaoa I 1.00 Koreans I 1.00 II -.04 1.00 111 .20 .2; 1.00 141 Table 40 Intormrrolatiops among Faotors for Suoooss in Sports Fagors I H Amorigos I 1.00 11 .38 1 00 Koreans I 1.00 Table 41 Intorerolations gong F aotors for Fas'loro in Sports mars I II III Americans I 1.00 11 .55 1.00 Koreans I 1.00 11 04 1.00 111 .22 .20 1.00 APPENDIX M 142 Appendix M Means and Standard Deviations for Gender Table 42 Means and SDs of Success in School for Amoricans Factor I Factor II flotor III Group N M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Male 100 2.04 (.93) 3.02 (1.20) 2.42 (1.01) 53.111816 100 1.75 Q70) 3.46 (1.26) 2.22 (.94) Table 43 M s dSDsofS cc sinSchoolforK r F_actor I Lactor II Factor III Fagors IV Grouo N M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Male 100 1.99 (1.10) 1.82 (.95) 2.99 (1.21) 4.20 (1.50) Fomale 100 1,54 (.55) 1.93 (87) 3.09 (1.2;) 3.58 (1.37) Table 44 Means and SDs of Failare in School for Amm'oaps Eagerl— Group N M (SD) Male 100 2.81 (1.03) Lanai; 100 2.2 (1.51) Table 45 Moaos and SDs of Failure in School for Koroaas Factor I Fagor II Fagor III Group N M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Male 100 2.54 (1.09) 5.35 (1.39) 3.44 (1.40) Female 100 2.27 (.89) 6.00 (1,18) 3.04 (1.26) Table 46 143 Means and SDs of Success in Sports for Americans Factor I F_actor II Group N M (SD) M (SD) Male 100 1.54 (.90) 2.22 (1.05) 5.9M 100 1.36 (.74) fi2.42 (1.11) Table 47 Mew and SDs of Success in Smrts for Koreans Factor I Group N M (SD) Male 100 2.06 (.97) Female 100 2.12 (1,05) Table 48 M D f F 'urein f rAm ri Factor] flotorll Cn'oup N M (SD) M (SD) Male 100 2.53 (1.46) 3.55 (1.42) Female 100 2.37 (1.30) 3.39 (1.45) Table 49 Mean Ds fF'lurein err F aotor I Faotor II Fagor III Group N M (SDL M (SD) M (SD) Male 100 2.98 (1.39) 3.50 (1.45) 4.67 (1.54) Fade 100 2.90 (1.23) 4.68 (1.21) 4.52 (1.31) APPENDD( N 144 Appendix N Correlations between Harter’s Perceived Competence Scores and Factors Table 50 Correlations between Harter’s Scores and Factors of Success in School Americans Koreans _H__arter’s I II III I II III IV Academic .07 .05 .02 -.00 .05 .06 -.01 Global -.09 -.03 .10 .09 -.11 £2 -.00 Table 51 rrli nH r’ cor F fF'lrin h l Amerioans Korms Hager’s I I II III Academic .07 .17* .04 .18"I Global .07 46* -.05 .20" Table 52 Correlations between Harter’s Scores and Factors of Spgess in Smrts AW ti 8 Korean flager’s I H I Athletic -.03 -.O8 -.03 Global -.07 .06 -.01 Table 53 Correlations between Hartor’s Scoros go Fagors of Far_l' ure in Sports Ame 'ogs Korma Flarteris I H I II III Athletic .11 .14 -.05 .30" .13 Global -.02 .08 420“ .10 105 'p < .05 "p<.01 "‘Illfllllllllfllwfillii“