179
Copyright © 2009 Heldref Publications
Taiwanese Students’ Self-Attributions for
Two Types of Achievement Goals
SHUN-WEN CHEN
National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan HSIOU-HUAI WANG
National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan CHIH-FEN WEI
Taipei Municipal University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan BIH-JEN FWU
KWANG-KUO HWANG National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
ABSTRACT. Previous studies of achievement motivations have focused on the patterns of self-attribution with little consideration of the effects of achievement goals. In the present study, the authors investigated Taiwanese students’ self-attribution for achievement goals mainly on the basis of autonomous interest (i.e., personal goals) and on social expectation (i.e., vertical goals). The authors administered self-developed scenario simulation ques-tionnaires to undergraduate and graduate participants in 2 studies. The results showed that (a) in pursuit of personal goals, participants tended to attribute success to internal factors and failure to external factors and (b) in pursuit of vertical goals, participants tended to attribute their failure to lack of effort. The authors further discuss the theoretical implica-tions of these findings under a cultural context.
Keywords: achievement goal, achievement motivation, attribution theory, role obligation
THE FIELD OF RESEARCH ON ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION was first established by Murray (1938) in the 1930s. He took a need-oriented approach to studying motivations for striving for achievement. Later, with the rise of cogni-tive psychology, Weiner (1974, 1986) explored achievement motivation from The present article was written when the corresponding authors were supported by a research grant from the Republic of China National Science Council (NSC 96-2752-H-002-001-PAE).
Address correspondence to Shun-Wen Chen, Center for General Education, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan; spsychen@yahoo.com.tw (e-mail).
the perspective of attribution and established the cognitive-oriented approach to studying achievement motivation. Since Weiner and his colleagues established an influential theory on self-attribution of achievement, many psychologists in the West have been examining the factors and outcomes related to self-attribution of achievement, the patterns of causal ascription for personal success or failure.
In recent years, as cross-cultural research has gained momentum, a number of studies have revealed that for people in non-Western societies, the psychologi-cal processes and associated behaviors for pursuing achievement may be quite different than those delineated in theories established in the West. Neither the need-oriented approach nor the cognitive-oriented approach fully explained the psychological and behavioral patterns of non-Western people, especially those from East Asia (e.g., Heine et al., 2001; Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Nora-sakkunkit, 1997; Yu, 1996; Yu & Yang, 1994).
Previous studies have revealed that students in the United States tend to emphasize self-enhancement when attributing a personal success or failure in achievement. The students tend to attribute success to internal factors and ascribe failure to external factors. However, students from East Asian countries do not demonstrate this pattern of attribution. East Asian students usually attribute their failure to internal factors, especially to lack of effort (Bond, Leung, & Wan, 1982; Brown & Kobayashi, 2002; Chiu, 1988; Heine et al., 2001; Kurman, 2003; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003; Yan & Gaier, 1994).
In the present study, we argue that East Asian people such as the Taiwanese do show patterns of self-enhancing attribution, depending on the achievement goals. We hypothesized that a differentiation of patterns of self-attribution may exist when individuals pursue different types of achievement goals. Situated in the Confucian culture of relationalism, most Chinese are expected to fulfill their role obligations to significant others in their social network (Hwang, 2000, 2001). They may pursue two types of goals: The pursuit of personally constructed goals involves maintenance of positive self-regard, whereas striving for socially con-structed goals involves identification with role obligations at work. To substanti-ate those suppositions, in the present study we proposed a conceptual framework and tested it with two empirical studies using two student samples from Taiwan, whose society has a strong and lasting Chinese cultural tradition.
To expand on this point, we proposed the following conceptual framework to clarify the types of achievement goals and their consequences for attribution (see Table 1). On the basis of the different sources of goal construction (Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Bandura, 1986; Gollwitzer, 1993), two types of achievement goals can be differentiated: personal goals based on autonomous interest and vertical goals based on social expectations.
The Two Types of Achievement Goals
Personal goals are defined as those constructed on individuals’ autonomous interests. Individuals may choose and define the content and criteria for their
goals from a wide variety of domains. Such goals may not have high social value and are not necessarily subject to consistent expectations from significant others such as parents or teachers. On the contrary, vertical goals are generally accorded with expectations from significant others and high social value. The content and criteria for these goals are usually defined and chosen by society in general. Individuals may pursue vertical achievement goals without developing intrinsic interest in them. Furthermore, some of these goals are derived by the general public from a set of highly recognized common values; thus, the perfor-mance of individuals on pursuing these goals is ranked into a vertical ladder of achievement by others. Individuals are usually under great pressure to climb up higher on the ladder of achievement. In other words, climbing up to the top of the vertical ladder is usually perceived as fulfilling one’s role obligations and meeting the expectations of significant others in a person’s social network.
In an individualistic culture, the right to choose one’s goals is usually accord-ed immense significance in the motivational process. Motivation theories devel-oped in such cultures often support the positive impact of autonomous interest in an individual’s process of developing achievement goals. For example, Deci and Ryan’s (1985, 1992, 2000; see also Ryan & Connell, 1989) self-determination theory claims that autonomy is the most important psychological need of human beings and the primary component of intrinsic motivation. If an individual takes an action that is motivated by intrinsic motivation, taking this action is itself the goal. However, if an individual takes an action to fulfill role obligations or to meet social expectations, he or she is mainly motivated by extrinsic motivations
From a cultural perspective, researchers have closely examined the need for autonomy because of its controversial nature. In fact, some researchers argue that autonomy is functionally important only in Western, individualistic cultures (e.g., Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Levesque, Zuehlke, Stanek, & Ryan, 2004; Markus & Kitamaya, 1991; Miller, 1997; Oishi, 2000). Although East Asian people
influ-TABLE 1. Conceptual Framework for Types of Achievement Goals and Their Consequences for Self-Attribution
Variable Personal goals Vertical goals
Primary source of Autonomous interest Social expectation
goal-construction
Primary function of Maintenance of positive Identification with role
self-attribution self-regard obligations
Hypotheses of styles of Self-enhancement: Effort model:
self-attribution Attributing failure to Attributing failure to
external factors and lack of effort
enced by Confucian traditions recognize the importance of personal autonomy, they also place high emphasis on the obligations or duties inherent in their social roles (Hwang, 1998, 2001).
Some empirical studies have revealed that for East Asian people, autono-mous interests and social expectations are implicated in the psychological pro-cesses and behavioral consequences of pursuit of achievement goals. Iyengar and Lepper (1999) studied how sense of control affected the achievement motivation and behaviors of White and Asian (i.e., Japanese and Chinese) children in the United States. The study indicated that the achievement motivations of White children were closely associated with their autonomous interests; they were motivated only under the condition of self-choice. When White children chose the tasks, their performance, persistence, fondness for the task, and choice of the task’s difficulty were higher than in other conditions. In contrast, Asian children manifested higher motivation and better performance in both the self-choice and the in-group condition than in the out-group condition. Their motivation was highest when their tasks were chosen by members of their in-group.
Salili, Chiu, and Lai (2001) also found that, compared with their White coun-terparts in Canada, Chinese students in Canada and Hong Kong tend to stress the importance of social expectations in their academic achievement. For Hong Kong students, the researchers found that academic achievement was not associated with intrinsic motivation, but was positively correlated with extrinsic motivations.
On the basis of the concepts and measurements of self-determination theory, D’Ailly (2003) conducted a survey with a sample of 806 elementary school stu-dents in Taiwan to understand the relations among parental rearing, children’s autonomy, perceived self-control, degree of effort, and academic achievement. Although she found a positive correlation between effort and academic achieve-ment, she found little correlation between autonomy and effort. She also found a negative correlation between autonomy and academic achievement. In contrast, social values and parental expectations were found to be strongly positively correlated with effort. These results reveal that for students in Taiwan, achieve-ment in academic domains may be promoted more by social expectation than by autonomous interest.
Achievement Goal Type and Attribution Patterns
In the present study, we argued that for students in East Asian societies, the effect of social expectation and autonomous interest on an individual’s psycho-logical process for pursuing achievement may be implicated in the processes of maintaining one’s positive self-regard and identification with one’s social roles. When people pursue different types of achievement goals, they display different patterns of attribution to fulfill distinctly different psychosocial functions.
In the case of achieving a personal goal, the main psychosocial functions of self-attribution involve maintaining positive self-regard. When individuals
pur-sue personal goals, they tend to exhibit self-enhancement in order to maintain a positive self-regard.
Hypothesis 1 (H1): In pursuit of personal goals, people tend to attribute success to internal factors, such as effort or ability, rather than to external elements, such as good luck or the simplicity of the task. They also tend to attribute failure to external factors, such as bad luck or difficulty of the task, rather than to internal ones, such as lack of effort or ability.
For vertical goals constructed on social expectations, the psychosocial func-tion of self-attribufunc-tion mainly involves identificafunc-tion with social role obligafunc-tions. Hwang (1998) pointed out that in Chinese cultures, fulfilling role obligations of filial piety is an unconditional positive duty. Through the socialization process, people are expected to fulfill their role obligations without much freedom of choice by pursuing vertical goals that are highly admired by the society (Wei, 2001). When pursuing such vertical goals, effort and diligence are accorded high value. Because it is so important to fulfill such goals, one cannot afford to allow factors that one cannot control—such as innate ability, luck, or task difficulty—to be the determining factors. In the case of failure, one is likely to emphasize lack of effort as a way to prompt oneself to make more effort for future success.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): In pursuit of vertical goals, individuals tend to adopt an effort model of self-attribution, which entails attributing one’s achieve-ment results to effort rather than to other factors, especially in the case of failure. Individuals tend to attribute failure to lack of effort more than to lack of ability, bad luck, or task difficulty.
STUDY 1
We investigated self-attribution styles in pursuit of vertical and personal goals for a group of Taiwanese college students by applying the scenario simula-tion method, which allows more considerasimula-tion for social contexts than does an experimental method and provides more room for manipulation than does field observation or an interview (Peng, Nisbett, & Wong, 1997).
Method Participants
Participants were 153 undergraduate and graduate students (58 men, 95 women) in psychology classes in universities in Taiwan. Their ages ranged from 18 to 32 years (M = 20.66 years, SD = 2.30 years; 3 participants did not report
their age). Undergraduate participants were eligible for bonus points for their psychology course.
Stimuli and Procedures
There were four versions of the scenario: personal goal and failure (PF), per-sonal goal and success (PS), vertical goal and failure (VF), and vertical goal and success (VS). The PF scenario was “Ming is a high school student who participated in a singing competition on a TV show. Though his parents had no expectation for him, Ming intended to win. In the end, Ming failed to win the contest.” The VF scenario was “Ming is a high school student who participated in a singing competi-tion on a TV show. Though his parents expected and encouraged him to win, Ming did not have much interest to do so. In the end, Ming failed to win the contest.” The scenarios for PS and VS were the same as those for PF and VF, respectively, except that the final sentence was “In the end, Ming was the winner.”
In the present study, we randomly assigned participants to one of the four scenarios. After reading the text, participants were asked, “If you were Ming, how would you attribute your failure?” in the PF or VF condition; or “If you were Ming, how would you attribute your success?” The four possible causes corresponding to ability, effort, luck, and task difficulty were listed. For example, in PS and VS, the ascriptions were “I am talented” (ability), “I worked hard” (effort), “I was lucky” (luck), and “the task was easy” (task difficulty). Partici-pants rated the likelihood they would make each of these attributions. All ratings were measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all likely) to 6 (very likely).
Finally, all participants were asked three questions: (a) “Did Ming succeed or fail?”, (b) “Did Ming’s parents expect him to win the competition?” (Yes or No), and (c) “Was Ming highly interested in winning the competition?” (Yes or No). These questions were manipulation checks to determine whether participants properly understood the scenario they had read. In all, 10 participants’ answers did not correspond to the context they read (2 of PS, 4 of VF, 4 of VS), so their data were excluded from further analysis.
Results
The design was a 2 (type of goal: personal vs. vertical) × 2 (outcome: failure vs. success) × 4 (cause: ability, effort, luck, and task difficulty) factorial with repeated measurements on the last factor. To examine our hypotheses, we con-ducted a three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). A three-way interaction was significant, F(3, 417) = 20.76, p < .001. Simple main effects of causal ascriptions were significant for each combination of types of goal and outcome, all ps < .01. Pair-wise comparisons were made for the simple effects of causal ascription. The means for the interactions are shown in Table 2.
For PF, there was no significant difference between the two internal factors (ability and effort). The likelihood of attributing to ability (M = 3.66, SD = 0.84) was significantly lower than that to luck (M = 4.3, SD = 0.86) or task difficulty (M = 4.46, SD = 1.07), all ps < .05. For PS, the likelihood of attributing to ability (M = 4.7, SD = 0.63) and effort (M = 5.0, SD = 0.7) were both significantly higher than the liklihood of attributing to luck (M = 3.73. SD = 1.11) or task difficulty (M = 2.17, SD = 0.76), all ps < .001. In other words, when pursuing personal goals, participants tended to attribute their success to internal factors (ability and effort), but they ascribed failure to external factors (luck and task difficulty). These results support H1.
For VF, the likelihood of attributing to effort (M = 4.32, SD = 1.09) was significantly higher than that of attributing to luck (M = 3.14, SD = 1.08), p < .001. Although there were no significant differences among ability, effort, and task difficulty, the likelihood of attributing to effort was the highest. The pattern of this result partially supports H2.
STUDY 2
In Study 1, scenario simulation (music competition with or without personal interest and with or without parental expectation) was used to manipulate the sources of goal construction (social expectation vs. autonomous interest). The results supported our hypotheses. Generally speaking, expectations from signifi-cant others usually hold recognized social value. In a particular society, certain achievement goals are widely recognized and endowed with high social value by the public and high expectation from significant others. For members of the social group, these goals can be viewed as vertical goals. In Taiwan, for instance, under the influence of the Confucian tradition, achievement in academic domains, such as getting good grades or admission to top colleges, has high social value (Hwang, 1998, 2001). In contrast, personal goals relate to achievements with less inherent social acclaim. Pursuit of personal goals depends on personal choice and interest. In Taiwan, the social value and expectation of achievement related to singing, painting, or sports is not as high as the social value placed on academic achievement (Cheng & Wong, 1996; Zeng, 1999).
In Study 2, we did not manipulate the source of goal construction in a contrived situation; instead, we chose an achievement goal generally perceived by Taiwan-ese young adults as a vertical goal—achievement in the academic domain—and a personal goal—achievement in music—to examine differences in the attribution patterns described in Study 1. The hypotheses of Study 2 are as follows:
Hypothesis 3 (H3): In music, participants will emphasize self-enhancement, that is, attribute their success to internal factors (ability or effort) and their failure to external factors (luck or task difficulty).
Hypothesis 4 (H4): In academics, participants will tend to adopt an effort model of attribution, that is, they will attribute failure to lack of effort.
Method Participants
Participants were 154 undergraduate and graduate students (67 men, 87 women) with ages ranging from 18 to 37 years (M = 20.83 years, SD = 2.80 years; 5 participants did not report their age). All students were recruited in psychology classes in universities in Taiwan. Undergraduate participants were eligible for bonus points toward class credit.
Design
The design was a 2 (goal domain: music vs. academia) × 2 (outcome: success vs. failure) × 4 (causal ascription: ability, effort, luck, and task difficulty) factorial design with repeated measurements on the last factor.
Stimuli and Procedures
As in Study 1, there were four versions of the scenario: music and failure (MF), music and success (MS), academic and failure (AF), and academic and success (AS). The MF scenario was “Wong is a high school student who par-ticipated in a singing competition on a TV show. But several weeks later, Wong failed to win the contest.” The MS scenario was the same as that of MF, except that the final sentence was “Several weeks later, Wong won the competition.” The AF scenario was “Wong is about to graduate from university and so he took the entrance exam for an ideal graduate school. Several weeks later, Wong found out he did not pass the exam.” The AS scenario was the same as that of AF, except that the final sentence was “Several weeks later, Wong found out he passed the exam.”
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four scenarios. After read-ing the text, participants were asked, “If you were Wong, how would you attribute your failure?” in MF or AF condition—or “If you were Wong, how would you attribute your success?” otherwise. Four causal ascriptions that corresponded to ability, effort, luck, and task difficulty were listed. The items and rating methods were the same as they were in Study 1.
Participants were then asked four more questions: “Do you believe that most people in our society value music achievement?” (or “Do you believe that most people in our society value academic achievement?”), and “Do your parents attach great importance to your music achievement?” (or “Do your par-ents attach great importance to your academic achievement?”). These two pair of questions were manipulation checks to examine the prevailing social values and perceived expectations from parents in the music and academic domains.
Last, all participants were asked, “Did Wong succeed or fail?” Two participants’ answers of the last item did not correspond to the scenario they read, so their data were excluded from further analysis.
Results Manipulation Checks
To check the efficacy of the manipulation of prevailing social values and perceived expectations from parents for music and academic achievement, the relevant items were submitted to paired-sample t tests. The prevailing social val-ues (M = 5.21, SD = 0.96) and perceived expectations from parents (M = 4.98, SD = 1.1) of the academic domain were both significantly higher than they were for the music domain (M = 2.46, SD = 1.1), t(151) = 23.17, p < .001; (M = 2.63, SD = 1.36), t(151) = 18.74, p < .001, respectively.
Testing the Hypotheses
As in Study 1, we conducted a 2 (goal domains) × 2 (outcome) × 4 (causal ascription) ANOVA. The three-way interaction was significant, F(3, 444) = 5.57, p < .001. Simple main effects of causal ascriptions were significant for each com-bination of type of goal and outcome, all ps < .05. Pair-wise comparisons were made for the simple effects of causal ascriptions. The means for the interaction are shown in Table 2.
For MF, the likelihoods of attributing to ability (M = 3.35, SD = 1.15) and effort (M = 3.58, SD = 1.26) were both significantly lower than those of attributing to luck (M = 4.43, SD = 0.96) and task difficulty (M = 4.48, SD = 1.09), all ps < .001. For MS, there was no significant difference between ability and effort. The likelihood of attributing to effort (M = 5.11, SD = 0.65) was significantly higher than that of attributing to luck (M = 3.89, SD = 0.89) or task difficulty (M = 2.37, SD = 0.97), all ps < .001. These results are similar to those in Study 1 and support H3.
For AF, the likelihood of attributing to effort (M = 4.22, SD = 1.07) was significantly higher than that of attributing to ability (M = 3.53, SD = 1.3), p < .05. The likelihood of attributing to effort was the highest, although there were no significant differences among effort, luck, and task difficulty.
Furthermore, we calculated the correlation between prevailing social value, perceived expectation from parents, and each causal ascription in the four scenarios. The results (see Table 3) revealed that only in the condition of failure in academic achievement is lack of effort significantly associated with perceived parental expectation. In other words, the effort model of attribution was used only in the case of failure in an academic domain (vertical goal). This result supports H4.
T ABLE 2. Means and Standard De viations of the Lik elihood of Attrib uting to F our Causal Ascriptions Ability Ef fort Luck Task dif ficulty V ariable M SD M SD M SD M SD Study 1: Causal ascriptions Personal goal Failure 3.66 0.84 3.79 1.3 4.3 0.86 4.46 1.07 Success 4.7 0.63 5.0 0.7 3.73 1.11 2.17 0.76 V ertical goal Failure 3.88 1.15 4.32 1.09 3.14 1.08 3.85 1.08 Success 4.58 1.11 3.69 1.24 4.3 1.05 2.64 1.22 Study 2: Causal ascriptions Music domain Failure 3.35 1.15 3.58 1.26 4.43 0.96 4.48 1.09 Success 4.5 0.83 5.11 0.65 3.89 0.89 2.37 0.97 Academic domain Failure 3.53 1.3 4.22 1.07 4.03 1.11 3.78 0.93 Success 3.87 0.67 5.03 0.64 3.79 1.02 2.32 0.96
DISCUSSION
We hypothesized that as the pursuit of a personal goal constructed mainly on autonomous interest involves the process of maintaining positive self-regard, Taiwanese people would tend to use self-enhancement in self-attributions of achievement to maintain or elevate positive self-regard. However, as the pursuit of a vertical goal is based mainly on social expectations and touches on identifica-tion with role obligaidentifica-tions, people tend to adopt an effort model of self-attribuidentifica-tion. The results from Studies 1 and 2 support these hypotheses.
To understand the psychological processes underlying striving for achieve-ment by people in Taiwan, a society with a strong Confucian tradition, research-ers must consider two aspects of motivation: autonomy of self and obligations for certain social roles. Western theories tend to attach higher significance to autonomy in achievement striving. We argue that for people from Chinese cultures, striving for achievement of goals surrounded by high social expec-tation does not necessarily entail a lower form of motivation; rather, it may involve the process of identification with social roles.
TABLE 3. Correlations Among Perceived Expectation From Parents (PEP), Prevailing Social Value (PSV), and Causal Ascriptions in the Four Scenarios
Causal ascriptions
Variable Ability Effort Luck Task difficulty PEP
Academic domain/failure PEP .13 .37* .23 .16 — PSV .08 .17 .41* .09 .50** Academic domain/success PEP .12 .07 .14 .05 — PSV .18 .03 .11 –.10 .52** Music domain/failure PEP .06 .13 .15 –.16 — PSV –.22 .17 .22 .10 .44** Music domain/success PEP .00 .10 –.14 –.05 — PSV –.30 –.22 .06 –.12 .54**
Note. For academic domain/failure, n = 36. For academic domain/success, n = 38. For music domain/failure, n = 38. For music domain/success, n = 40.
We have argued that when people from Chinese cultures make attributions about personal goals, they tend to elevate their selves for positive self-images through self-enhancing. However, for vertical goals, they are likely to use an effort model of self-attribution, with a view to prompting themselves to make more effort in the future. The conceptual framework we proposed may be used to analyze and explain findings from previous research. Some researchers have adopted the concept of self-effacement to explain the attribution patterns of East Asian people. They have noted that East Asians often attribute success to external factors and ascribe failure to internal ones. However, self-effacement usually carries the negative connotation of low self-esteem. This term provides little consideration of the psychosocial processes of East Asian people in pursuit of achievement.
Other cross-cultural psychologists have used the concepts of self-criticism (e.g., Kitayama et al., 1997) or self-improvement (e.g., Heine et al., 2001) to suggest that East Asian people tend to employ a self-attribution pattern that functions as a motivation for constant improvement. Both self-criticism and self-improvement imply that when East Asian people pursue achievement goals, they are inclined to attribute failure to lack of effort, displaying an effort model in self-attribution. From the present study, we add the observation that this effort model is related to a person’s role obligations in the social network. When an individual is faced with a vertical goal relating to role obligations (e.g., succeed-ing academically as a duty to meet parental expectations of a filial child), failure is explained by lack of effort and may prompt greater effort to achieve the duties in the next round.
We have differentiated achievement goals by two types: vertical and per-sonal. However, it is important to note that because these goal types are con-ceptual ideals, it is not our intention to categorize all goals in real-life situations into two poles of a dichotomy. In fact, such categorization is impossible and inappropriate because individuals may gradually internalize vertical goals set by others and develop autonomous interests, increasingly transforming vertical goals into personal ones (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000). In contrast, individuals are seldom passively conditioned by external forces, but rather possess agency and are able to change the perspectives of others surrounding them and gradu-ally to bring about changes in social values (Archer, 1995). In many East Asian societies, maintenance of positive self-regard and identification with social roles are often regarded as two sides of one coin in the cultural scripts for an ideal personhood (Doi, 1986).
In addition, sources of social influence—that is, prevailing social values and expectations from significant others or in-group members—may produce different effects on individuals’ construction of achievement goals and may have important social or psychological consequences. The present authors recommend that future researchers further analyze these various characteristics of achieve-ment goals and their psychosocial consequences.
Last, it is not our intention to make an overgeneralized dichotomous dis-tinction between Westerners and East Asians in their self-attribution patterns. We suggest that although the basic human motivations are universal, different sociocultural values may enhance or inhibit certain forms of motivation. We think that people in both East Asia and the West have the motivation for maintaining positive self-regard. They are also subject to certain social expectations to both assume and fulfill their role obligations. So we believe that Westerners do pur-sue vertical goals under certain circumstances. Nevertheless, the inquiry into the specific circumstances under which they may pursue vertical goals constitutes an interesting topic for further study.
AUTHOR NOTES
Shun-Wen Chen is an assistant professor at the Center for General Education in National Tsing Hua University. His research interests include learning motivation and cul-tural studies of educational psychology. Hsiou-Huai Wang obtained her doctoral degree from Harvard University and is an associate professor at Center for Teacher Education in National Taiwan University. Her research interests include cultural perspective on educa-tion, teacher educaeduca-tion, and higher education. Chih-Fen Wei is an associate professor at the Department of Psychology and Counseling in Taipei Municipal University of Educa-tion. Her research interests focus on Chinese role obligation and life goal. Bih-Jen Fwu is a professor at the Center for Teacher Education in National Taiwan University. She obtained her doctoral degree in educational policy analysis from the University of Califor-nia at Los Angeles in 1993. Her research interests include teacher education, educational policy analysis, and cultural studies of education. Kwang-Kuo Hwang has devoted him-self to the development of indigenous psychology in Confucian societies. He has published numerous articles and several books on related topics and is a national chair professor, outstanding scholar, and lifelong distinguished professor in National Taiwan University.
REFERENCES
Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge University Press.
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338–375.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., & Wan, K. C. (1982). The social impact of self-effacing attribu-tion: The Chinese case. The Journal of Social Psychology, 118, 157–166.
Brown, J. D., & Kobayashi, C. (2002). Self-enhancement in Japan and America. Asian-Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 145–168.
Cheng, K. M., & Wong, K. C. (1996). School effectiveness in East Asia: Concepts, origins and implications. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 32–49.
Chiu, L. H. (1988). Locus of control differences between American and Chinese adoles-cents. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 411–413.
D’Ailly, H. (2003). Children’s autonomy and perceived control in learning: A model of motivation and achievement in Taiwan. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 84–96.
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). The initiation and regulation of intrinsically motivated learning and achievement. In A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social–developmental perspective (pp. 9–36). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self–determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Doi, T. (1986). The anatomy of self: The individual versus society. Tokyo: Kodansha International.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of intentions. In M. Hewstone & W. Stroebe (Eds.), European review of social psychology, Vol. 4 (pp. 141–185). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D. R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C., et al. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North American: An inves-tigation of self–improving motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
81, 599–615.
Hwang, K. K. (1998). Two moralities: Reinterpreting the finding of empirical research on moral reasoning in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 211–238.
Hwang, K. K. (2000). Chinese relationalism: Theoretical construction and methodological considerations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 30, 155–178.
Hwang, K. K. (2001). The deep structure of Confucianism: A social psychological approach. Asian Philosophy, 11, 179–204.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural per-spective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 349–366.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the US and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1245–1267. Kurman, J. (2003). Why is self-enhancement low in certain collectivist cultures? An
investigation of two competing explanations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
34, 496–510.
Levesque, C., Zuehlke, N., Stanek, L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Autonomy and competence in German and U.S. university students: A comparative study based on self-determina-tion theory. Journal of Educaself-determina-tional Psychology, 96, 68–84.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Miller, J. G. (1997). Cultural conceptions of duty: Implications for morality and moti-vation. In J. Schumaker, D. Munro, & S. Carr (Eds.), Motivation and culture (pp. 178–193). New York: Routledge.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Oishi, S. (2000). Goals as cornerstones of subjective well-being: Linking individuals and
cultures. In E. Diener & E. M. Suh (Eds.), Cross-cultural psychology of subjective well-being (pp. 87–112). Boston: MIT Press.
Peng, K., Nisbett, R. E., & Wong, Y. C. (1997). Validity problems comparing values across cultures and possible solutions. Psychological Methods, 2, 329–344.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 57, 749–761.
Salili, F., Chiu, C. Y., & Lai, S. (2001). The influence of culture and context on students’ motivational orientation and performance. In F. Salili, C. Y. Chiu, & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), Student motivation: The culture and context of learning (pp. 221–247). New York:
Plenum Press.
Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural self–enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 60–70.
Wei, C. F. (2001). Relationalism and interpersonal duties in Chinese society. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Weiner, B. (1974). An achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer– Verlag.
Yan, W., and Gaier, E. L. (1994). Causal attributions for college success and failure: An Asian American comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 146–158. Yu, A. B. (1996). Ultimate life concerns, self, and Chinese achievement motivation. In
M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 227–246). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Yu, A. B., & Yang, K. S. (1994). The nature of achievement motivation in collectivistic societies. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Indi-vidualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 239–250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zeng, K. (1999). Dragon gate: Competitive examinations and their consequences. Lon-don: Cassell.
Received August 6, 2007 Accepted October 8, 2007
The Journal of General Psychology publishes human and animal research
refl ecting various methodological approaches in all areas of experimental psychology. It covers traditional topics such as physiological and
comparative psychology, sensation, perception, learning, and motivation, as well as more diverse topics such as cognition, memory, language, aging, and substance abuse, or mathematical, statistical, methodological, and other theoretical investigations. The journal especially features studies that establish functional relationships, involve a series of integrated experiments, or contribute to the development of new theoretical insights or practical applications.
The Journal of General Psychology practices blind review. Therefore, a
manuscript should be submitted with the author names and affi liations removed. Please include this information in the cover letter.
Submit manuscripts electronically to http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gen. The manuscript should be submitted as a double-spaced Microsoft Word fi le with minimal formatting and in 12-point Times or Times New Roman font. Please do not use word-processing styles, forced section breaks, or automatic footnotes. Include 3 −4 keywords or phrases after the Abstract.
Include a submission letter with a statement that the manuscript is not under concurrent consideration elsewhere. Each manuscript is reviewed by three readers, a process that requires several weeks.
Manuscripts must adhere to the conventions of style and format described in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed., 2001). The checklist on pages 379−382 of the manual is helpful in preparing manuscripts for submission.
