行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫 成果報告
訂做一個他：心理控制/自主支持、完美主義與成就目標取
向間之關係
研究成果報告(精簡版)
計 畫 類 別 ： 個別型 計 畫 編 號 ： NSC 98-2410-H-004-005- 執 行 期 間 ： 98 年 08 月 01 日至 99 年 12 月 31 日 執 行 單 位 ： 國立政治大學師資培育中心 計 畫 主 持 人 ： 施淑慎 計畫參與人員： 碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：陳冠樺 碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：李巧惠 博士班研究生-兼任助理人員：黃郁婷 報 告 附 件 ： 出席國際會議研究心得報告及發表論文 處 理 方 式 ： 本計畫涉及專利或其他智慧財產權，2 年後可公開查詢中 華 民 國 100 年 01 月 02 日
中文摘要 本研究以成就動機階層模式為參考架構，探究成就目標的前置變項，以及其 與教師、父母的自主支持、心理控制和個人的完美主義傾向間之關係。研究對象 為512 位國中八年級學生。研究結果顯示：家庭和課室情境中的自主支持及心理 控制、以及個體的完美主義傾向，對學生的成就目標取向均具有預測作用。此外， 本研究的結果印證了在西方文化脈絡下所發現的，有關自主支持 vs. 心理控制 之社會情境的相關效應：教師自主支持與適應性完美主義間存在正相關；父母的 心理控制則可正向預測不適應性完美主義。本研究亦同時檢視不同完美主義傾向 的青少年之特質，發現與不適應完美主義者相較，適應性完美主義者知覺到較高 水準之教師自主支持及較低水準之父母心理控制，而適應性完美主義者也較傾向 於追求趨向導向的目標。根據上述結果，本研究針對教學實務工作與未來研究提 出建議與討論。 關鍵詞：自主支持、心理控制、完美主義、成就目標
Abstract
Using the hierarchical model of achievement motivation as a theoretical framework, the present study attempted to explore the potential antecedents of achievement goals and the relations of teacher and parental autonomy support vs. psychological control to Taiwanese adolescents’ perfectionistic tendencies. Five hundred and twelve eighth-grade students completed self-reported questionnaires assessing the variables of interest. Results indicated that autonomy support vs. psychological control in the family and classroom settings, along with perfectionism played predicting roles in students’ goal orientations. In addition, the present findings replicated the effects of autonomy-supportive vs. controlling social environment consistently found in Western cultures. Teachers’ autonomy support was found to be related to adaptive
perfectionism, whereas parental psychological control significantly predicted maladaptive perfectionism. This study also documented the profiles of adolescents with different perfectionistic tendencies. Adaptive perfectionists reported higher levels of teachers’ autonomy support and lower levels of parental psychological control than did maladaptive perfectionists. Also, adaptive perfectionists were more likely to adopt approach-oriented goals. Implications for education and future research are discussed.
Keywords: autonomy support, psychological control, perfectionism, achievement goals
Relations among Autonomy Support vs. Psychological Control, Perfectionism, and Taiwanese Adolescents’ Achievement Goals
Over the past several decades, achievement goal theory has emerged as the dominant framework for studying achievement motivation. As a cognitive approach to motivation, achievement goal framework provides a window into the
psychological processes through which achievement behavior is created (Elliot & Thrash, 2001). Achievement goal refers to a cognitive representation of a
competence-based possibility that a person seeks to attain (Elliot, 1999).
Achievement goal theorists differentiate achievement goals on two dimensions: according to how competence is defined and according to how competence is
valenced. Conventionally, competence may be defined according to whether one has fully mastered the task at hand or perform better than others (i.e., the
mastery-performance distinction). In terms of how competence is valenced, an achievement goal may focus the individual on attaining a positive, desirable possibility (an approach goal) or avoiding a negative, undesirable possibility (an avoidance goal).
Combining the definition and valence dimensions result in a 2 × 2 crossing of the performance-mastery and approach-avoidance distinctions that may account for the broad spectrum of competence-based strivings (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Mastery-approach goals motivate individuals to increase their competence or achieve task mastery. Mastery-avoidance goals represent striving to avoid losing one’s skills and abilities or a lack of task mastery. Performance-approach goals focus students on demonstrating their ability relative to others or proving their self-worth. Finally, performance-avoidance goals lead students to avoid appearing incompetent or less able than others. These goals are posited to function as channels for their underlying motivation. Hence, each goal type has been linked to a distinct predictive
profile. For instance, mastery goals have been associated with a range of positive processes and outcomes, including absorption in study material, persistence while studying, deep processing of information, and long-term retention of information (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & McGregor, 2001). The relations of mastery goals and positive engagement may arise from intrinsic motivation that underlies this type of goal (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). By contrast, performance-avoidance goals produce worry and distraction that result in procrastination, low absorption during task engagement, and poor retention of information (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & McGregor, 2001).
The Hierarchical Model of Achievement Motivation
Although the relations of achievement goals to school-related outcomes have been extensively explored in empirical work, there has been a lack of attention to factors predicting achievement goals. A full account of motivation ought to attend to both direction (goals) and energization (the underlying sources of goal adoption). To address this issue, the hierarchical model of achievement motivation was developed to incorporate both important antecedents of goal adoption and goals together into an integrative framework (Elliot, 2006; Elliot & Thrash, 2001). In the hierarchical model, achievement goals represent the final component of the self-regulatory process through which individuals pursue their more abstract desires, concerns, needs, and motives (i.e., reasons). These abstract reasons are activated by intrapsychic (e.g., individuals’ perfectionistic tendencies) or environmental processes (e.g., autonomy support and psychological control in the family or classroom contexts). In turn, individuals adopt more concrete goals to accomplish the desire, concern, need, or motive that has been activated. In other words,
achievement goals serve their underlying intrapersonal or environmental influences and function as the proximal predictors of achievement-relevant processes and
outcomes (Elliot & Thrash, 2001). In the present study, the hierarchical model of achievement motivation was employed to help elucidate the potential antecedents of achievement goals. Given that perfectionism has been generally conceptualized as a dispositional tendency to set excessively high standards for performance and to define one’s worth by the accomplishments of those standards, (Flett & Hewitt, 2002; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990), this intrapsychic trait might have
implications for the adoption of achievement goals.
Adaptive vs. Maladaptive Perfectionism
Recently, theorists and researchers have begun to distinguish between maladaptive and adaptive perfectionism based on cumulative evidence (Bieling, Israeli, Smith, & Antony, 2003; Enns, Cox, & Clara, 2002; Frost, Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993). Adaptive perfectionism involves setting high personal standards and striving for success while retaining the ability to be satisfied with one’s performance. In contrast, maladaptive perfectionism is characterized by excessive rigidity in expectations, feeling compelled to reach for goals, the inability to take pleasure in one’s performance, and concern over errors (Enns et al., 2002). Whereas maladaptive perfectionism was found to be positively related to
psychological dysfunction, adaptive perfectionism tended to be positively correlated with healthy adjustment (Stoeber, Harris, & Moon, 2007).
Built upon the conceptualization of perfectionism as a multidimensional construct with both adaptive and maladaptive aspects, Frost et al. (1990) developed a validated and widely used measure of perfectionism termed “Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale.” These researchers identified five dimensions contributing to total perfectionism. The first dimension has been described as the central feature of perfectionism, namely, the setting of personal standards of performance. Another major dimension is concern over making mistakes. This dimension assesses
individuals’ tendencies to equate mistakes with failure and to believe that failure will lead to the loss of respect of others (Kawamura, Frost, & Harmatz, 2002). The third component is the tendency to doubt the quality of one’s performance. It measures the extent of one’s confidence in his or her ability to accomplish tasks. The fourth and fifth dimensions assess the theorized root of perfectionism, high parental expectations and parental criticism. In addition to these five dimensions, a tendency to be organized has often been associated with perfectionism (Frost et al.,1993). Factors analyses performed by previous studies (Bieling, Israeli, & Antony, 2004; Dunkley, Blankstein, Masheb, & Grilo, 2006; & Frost et al., 1993) consistently yielded two higher-order latent factors sustaining the differentiation between adaptive vs. maladaptive perfectionism. Adaptive perfectionism includes scales measuring personal standards and organization, whereas scales measuring concern over mistakes, doubts about actions, and parental criticism cluster together to form a factor reflecting the maladaptive aspect of perfectionism.
Slade and Owens’s (1998) dual process model of perfectionism suggest that adaptive perfectionism is associated with motivation to approach success, while maladaptive perfectionism is likely to bring about motivation to avoid failure. Hope of success and fear of failure that constitute the important features of perfectionism, clearly, may prompt individuals to endorse contrastingly different goals in
achievement contexts. Further, because daily life experiences within social contexts produce recurrent approach and avoidance tendencies with regard to achievement (Elliot, 2006), students’ perceptions of autonomy support vs. psychological control in the family and classroom contexts may, to a certain degree, shape their
achievement striving. Below, the effects of these environmental processes are further elaborated.
Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000) proponents pointed out that autonomy is a psychological need critical for optimal learning and achievement. Moreover, they contended that autonomy-supportive environments promote the development of self-governing functioning as well as beneficial outcomes. In autonomy-supportive contexts, an individual in a position of authority takes the other’s perspective, allows opportunities for self-initiation and choice, provides a meaningful rationale for the requirement, and acknowledges the other’s feelings while minimizing the use of pressures and demands (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994). In contrast, psychological control refers to behaviors of the person in a position of authority that intrude upon the thoughts and feelings of the one who has a position with less authority by excessively using manipulative
techniques like guilt-induction and love withdrawal (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Luyten, Duriez, & Goossens, 2005).
Previous findings revealed that when the interpersonal context of children’s learning was autonomy supportive, the children reported higher levels of intrinsic motivation, perceived cognitive competence (Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981), and self-esteem (Ryan & Grolnick, 1986) than when the context was controlling. When the interpersonal context was psychologically controlling, individuals’ self-esteem hinged on performance. This type of ego involvement led people to focus on proving and defending themselves rather than pursuing growth and challenge (Deci & Ryan, 1987). Put another way, social contexts characterized by autonomy support vs. psychological control are expected to lead students to espouse different types of achievement goals.
In addition to serving as the antecedents of achievement goals, autonomy support vs. psychological control may also be linked to perfectionistic features. For instance, Hamachek (1978) presumed that maladaptive perfectionism arises from
non-approval and conditional approval of parents. Soenens et al. (2005) in effect found that adolescents experiencing psychological control doubted their behavior, engaged in negative self-evaluation, and had strong concerns about their potential mistakes.
Effects of Cultural Context
Whereas considerable empirical findings reviewed above revealed the beneficial effects of autonomy support vs. deleterious effects of psychological control on individuals’ achievement-relevant processes, an influential cultural analysis, presented by Markus and Kitayama (1991, 2003), challenged the applicability of the SDT perspective on autonomy vs. control to non-Western cultures. These researchers maintained that individuals in many non-Western, and particularly East Asian, cultures possess a more interdependent model of the self. For those who possess a more interdependent model of the self, one’s autonomy may be secondary to, and constrained by, the primary task of interdependence.
Accordingly, members of more interdependent cultures might sometimes prefer to submit to choices expressed by significant others for the sake of the superordinate cultural goal of belongingness (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999). This is exactly the case of Taiwan.
Studies of the Taiwanese society showed that instead of exercising personal choice, Taiwanese people tend to act primarily in accordance with the anticipated expectations of others and social norms (Yang, 1981, 1997). Additionally, compared to American parents, Taiwanese parents are more likely to expect their children to be smart students (Benjamin, 2006). Thus, the child’s motive to achieve may not
necessarily reflect his or her internal wishes. It can have social or collective origins. Given that Taiwanese students strive to live up to the expectations of reciprocally interdependent others, such as parents and teachers, it would be informative to
examine whether findings regarding the harmful effects of psychological control on Western students’ motivational also apply to Taiwanese students.
To sum up, the present study attempted to examine the applicability of the hierarchical model of achievement motivation to the Taiwanese context. Based upon the notion of this model, it was expected that perceived autonomy support vs. psychological control in the family and classroom contexts, as well as individuals’ perfectionistic tendencies would function as the antecedents of goal adoption. Moreover, according to SDT, students’ perceptions of autonomy support vs. psychological control in social contexts were expected to be related to their perfectionistic strivings. Specifically, the present research was intended to test the following hypotheses: (a) Adolescents’ perceptions of parental and teacher
autonomy support and psychological control, along with perfectionistic tendencies would significantly predict their achievement goal orientations; (b) Adolescents’ perceptions of parental and teacher autonomy support and psychological control would significantly predict their perfectionistic tendencies; (c) Adolescents’
perceptions of parental and teacher autonomy support and psychological control, as well as achievement goal orientations would significantly differ according to their perfectionistic tendencies.
Methods
Participants
The participants included 512 eighth-grade Taiwanese students from
twenty-one classes in four junior high schools. Participating schools were located in the northern part of Taiwan. All of the school principals granted initial consent for data to be collected in their schools. The 262 girls (51%) and 250 boys ranged in age from 12 years, 9 months to 16 years, 6 months (M = 13 years, 6 months). The school districts were primarily middle class in terms of socioeconomic status. All of the
participants were Taiwanese. Guidelines for the proper treatment of human subjects were followed. Subjects’ participation was voluntary. Their participation was not linked to participation in a school course. Confidential treatment of the data was guaranteed.
Procedure
The data were collected at the beginning of the year in eighth grade
(September). Students were required to fill out a few questionnaires (described in detail below) during regular class time. There were two research assistants in each class for the data collection. They assured students of the confidentiality of their self-reports and encouraged them to respond to the items as accurately as possible.
Measures
Participants were instructed to respond to all items on five-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All questionnaires were translated from English to Chinese, the participants’ native language, using the guidelines of the International Test Commission (Hambleton, 1994). The items of the questionnaires employed in the current study were presented in randomized fashion to avoid potential ordering effects.
Perfectionism. Students’ perfectionistic tendencies were assessed by the scale
adapted from the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS; Frost et al., 1990). This scale measures perfectionism across six dimensions. For the present
investigation, four of the original six subscales were used including personal standards (e.g., “I set higher goals than most people”; 6 items; α = .81; α = .83 in Frost et al.’s study), organization (e.g., “I try to be an organized person”; 5 items; α = .86; α = .93 in Frost et al.’s study), concern over mistakes (e.g., “People will probably think less of me if I make a mistake”; 9 items; α = .84; α = .88 in Frost et al.’s study), and doubts about actions (e.g., “I usually have doubts about the simple
everyday things I do”; 4 items; α = .65; α = .77 in Frost et al.’s study). Although the subscale measuring doubts about actions had a lower alpha value, Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggested that an alpha value of 0.6 is generally acceptable. One of the explanations for the lower alpha value of this scale may be that it consists of a smaller number of items.
The remaining two subscales of the MPS (parental expectations and parental criticism) were not used. These two scales measure aspects of an individual’s experience with their parents. The present study was intended to investigate
perfectionistic expectations one has for oneself. Thus, the scales measuring parental expectations and criticism were not considered central to the aspect of perfectionism under investigation. Moreover, the regression analysis was planned in the current research to explore the predicting effects of parental autonomy support vs. psychological control on perfectionism. Because the scales measuring parental autonomy support vs. psychological control and the scales measuring parental expectations and criticism are supposed to be highly correlated, suppression effects that may lead to unreliable and inconclusive results are likely to occur in the case of entering all six dimensions of perfectionism in the regression (Tacq, 1997). For these reasons, the scales measuring parental expectations and criticism were not included.
Next, according to Frost et al.’s study on adaptive vs. maladaptive perfectionism (1993), the personal standards and organization subscales were combined to create the adaptive perfectionism measure (r = .69, p < .001; α = .87). Also, the scores for concern over mistakes and doubts about actions were averaged to form a maladaptive perfectionism composite (r = .49, p < .001; α = .81). To ensure the validity of these two composite scales, confirmatory factor analyses were completed using LISREL 8.52 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2002). Maximum Likelihood was used as the estimation method (Hoyle & Panter, 1995). In the models tested,
items from each composite scale (i.e., adaptive vs. maladaptive perfectionism) were hypothesized to load only onto their respective latent variables.
Results suggested that in terms of adaptive perfectionism, the model
represented an adequate fit to the data, χ2 (37, N = 512) = 119.04, p < .01, χ2/N = .23, RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) = .06, GFI (Goodness of Fit Index) = .96, NFI (Normed Fit Index) = .98, NNFI (Non-Normed Fit Index) = .98, CFI (Comparative Fit Index) = .99, IFI (Incremental Fit Index) = .99, RFI (Relative Fit Index) = .97. Although the value of RMSEA was greater than .05, a number of researchers have suggested that values in the range of .05 to .08 indicate reasonable fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; McDonald & Ho, 2002). Further, the χ2 /N ratio was less than 5.0, showing a good fit. In addition, any model with a fit index above .90 was considered acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The model of maladaptive
perfectionism also provided an acceptable fit to the data, χ2 (56, N = 512) = 166.38,
p < .05, χ2/N = .32, RMSEA = .06, GFI = .95, NFI = .96, NNFI = .97, CFI = .98, IFI = .98, RFI = .95.
Achievement goals. Students’ achievement goal orientations were measured by
the revised version of the Achievement Goals Questionnaire (AGO-Revised, Elliot & Murayama, 2008). This questionnaire assesses the four types of achievement goals. Four scores representing mastery-approach (e.g., “My goal is to learn as much as possible”; 3 items; α = .78; α = .84 in Elliot and Murayama’s study),
mastery-avoidance (e.g., “My goal is to avoid learning less than it is possible to learn”; 3 items; α = .67; α = .88 in Elliot and Murayama’s study),
performance-approach (e.g., “My goal is to perform better than the other students”; 3 items; α = .80; α = .92 in Elliot and Murayama’s study), and
performance-avoidance goals (e.g., “My goal is to avoid performing poorly compared to others”; 3 items; α = .77; α = .94 in Elliot and Murayama’s study) for
each student were created accordingly. To test the validity of the scale, items from each subscale were hypothesized to load only onto their respective latent variables in the CFA model. Results suggested that this model represented a reasonable fit for the proposed structure of the scale, χ2 (48, N = 512) = 154.79, p < .05, χ2/N = .30,
RMSEA = .06, GFI = .95, NFI = .98, NNFI = .98, CFI = .98, IFI = .98, RFI = .97.
Perceived autonomy support from teachers. Students’ perceptions of autonomy
support provided by their teachers were assessed by the short version of the Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ; Williams & Deci, 1996). The scale has 6 items that measure the degree to which the students perceive the instructors as supporting their autonomy (e.g., “My instructor listens to how I would like to do things”; α = .78; α = .96 in William and Deci’s study). Higher scores represent a higher level of perceived autonomy support in the classroom context. In the model tested in the confirmatory factor analysis, the 6 items were hypothesized to load onto one latent factor. Results showed that this model provided a good fit to the data, χ2 (6, N = 512) = 14.29, p > .05, χ2/N = .03, RMSEA = .04, GFI = .99, NFI = .99, NNFI = .99, CFI = .99, IFI = .99, RFI = .97.
Perceived autonomy support from parents. Students’ perceptions of autonomy
support provided by their parents were assessed by the child version of the Perceptions of Parents Scales (POPS; Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991). The scale assesses children’s perceptions of the degree to which their parents are autonomy supportive (e.g., “My parents always explain to me about the way I should behave”; 6 items; α = .65; α = .67 in Grolnick et al.’s study). Higher scores represent a higher level of perceived autonomy support in the family context. A confirmatory factor analysis was also run to examine the validity of this scale. In the model tested, the 6 items were hypothesized to load onto one latent factor. Results showed that this model provided an excellent fit to the data, χ2 (5, N = 512) = 3.94, p > .05, χ2/N = .01,
RMSEA = .01, GFI = 1.00, NFI = .99, NNFI = 1.00, CFI = 1.00, IFI = 1.00, RFI = .98.
Parental and teachers’ psychological control. Students’ perceptions of parental
psychological control were assessed by the Parental Psychological Control Scale (Shek, 2006). The scale has 10 items that assess parental psychological control in a global manner (e.g., “My parents want to control everything in my life”; α = .86; α = .89 in Shek’s study). In addition, the Parental Psychological Control Scale employed in the current research was adapted to assess perceived teachers’ psychological control. Specifically, the subject of the sentence in each item of the scale was changed from “my parents” to “my teacher” (e.g., “During our
conversation, my teacher always dominates the conversation and wants me to follow his or her view”; 10 items; α = .88). Higher scores represent a higher level of
perceived psychological control in the family or classroom context.
In the models tested in the confirmatory factor analyses, the 10 items assessing parental control were hypothesized to load onto one latent factor. The CFA yielded a good fit to the data, χ2 (29, N = 512) = 63.69, p < .05, χ2/N = .12, RMSEA = .04, GFI = .98, NFI = .99, NNFI = .99, CFI = .99, IFI = .99, RFI = .98. The 10 items for teachers were also hypothesized to load onto a single latent factor in the tested CFA model. Results suggested that this model provided a good fit to the data as well, χ2 (30, N = 512) = 62.98, p < .01, χ2/N = .12, RMSEA = .04, GFI = .98, NFI = .98, NNFI = .99, CFI = .99, IFI = .99, RFI = .97.
Results
Regression Analyses
Descriptive information and correlations for study variables are displayed in Table 1. Results from the regression analyses are presented first for outcomes regarding students’ achievement goal orientations, and then for their perfectionistic
tendencies. In the preliminary analysis, gender was entered first in the regression models. It turned out that gender failed to predict any outcome variable of interest. Therefore, gender was not included as a predicting variable in the current study. Across the regression analyses, perceived autonomy support vs. psychological control in the social contexts were given higher priority of entry because this set of predictors were presumed to be causally prior to perfectionistic tendencies (Soenens et al., 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The alpha level used to determine the significance of all of these analyses was set at .01. This more conservative alpha level was selected to reduce the possibility of making a Type I error arising from completing a series of analyses with related outcomes (Wolters, 2004).
Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Achievement Goal Orientations
Mastery-approach goals. Results of the hierarchical regressions predicting
achievement goal orientations were displayed in Table 2. As the first set of predictor variables, students’ perceptions of parental autonomy support, psychological control, and the interaction of parental support and control failed to explain a significant amount of the variance in mastery-approach goals. In Step 2, teachers’ autonomy support, psychological control, as well as the interaction of both predictors were entered in the equation. Adding these variables increased the amount of variance explained in mastery-approach goals by 11%, F(6, 505) = 11.25, p < .001. Perceived autonomy support provided by teachers positively predicted mastery-approach goals, β = .31, p < .01. In the final step of the model, students’ different perfectionistic tendencies were included. Adding these variables increased the amount of variance explained by 37% for mastery-approach goals, F(10, 501) = 48.00, p < .001. When other predictors were controlled for, both the tendencies to set higher personal standards (β = .40, p < .001) and to be organized (β = .33, p < .001) were positively correlated with mastery-approach goals. Given that only teachers’
autonomy support and adaptive perfectionism significantly predicted
mastery-approach goals, the first hypothesis of the current study (i.e., the hypothesis concerning the antecedents of achievement goals) was partially supported.
Mastery-avoidance goals. Students’ perceived parental autonomy support,
psychological control, and the interaction of both predictor variables were entered in the first regression model and accounted for a significant amount of the variance (3%) in mastery-avoidance goals, F(3, 508) = 4.88, p < .01. Parental autonomy support and psychological control were both positively associated with
mastery-avoidance goals, β = .47, p < .001 and β = .37, p < .01, respectively. Adding teachers’ autonomy support, psychological control, and the interaction of both predictors in Step 2 did not significantly increase the amount of variance explained for mastery-avoidance goals. In Step 3, students’ different perfectionistic tendencies were included in the model. Adding these variables increased the amount of variance explained by 30% for mastery-avoidance goals, F(10, 501) = 30.97, p < .001. Results from this step suggested that when other predictors were controlled for, the setting of personal standards and the tendency to be organized both
positively predicted mastery-avoidance goals, β = .43, p < .001 and β = .14, p < .01, respectively. The first hypothesis of the present study was only partially sustained due to the insignificant effects of teachers’ support and control on this type of goal.
Performance-approach goals. The variables entered in Step 1 failed to predict a
significant amount of the variance in performance-approach goals. Results from the second step of analysis indicated that adding teachers’ autonomy support,
psychological control, and the interaction of both predictors increased the amount of variance explained in performance-approach goals by 10%, F(6, 505) = 9.89, p < .001. When other predictors were accounted for, teachers’ autonomy support
positively predicted performance-approach goals, β = .37, p < .01. In the final step, students’ different perfectionistic tendencies were included. Adding these variables increased the amount of variance explained for performance-approach goals by 44%,
F(10, 501) = 59.08, p < .001. When other predictors were controlled for, students’
perfectionistic tendencies including the setting of personal standards (β = .48, p < .001), the tendency to be organized (β = .21, p < .001), as well as concern over making mistakes (β = .15, p < .001) were all positively correlated with
performance-approach goals. Because only teachers’ autonomy support and perfectionistic tendencies significantly predicted performance-approach goals, the first hypothesis of the current study was partially confirmed.
Performance-avoidance goals. Students’ perceptions of parental autonomy
support, psychological control, and the interaction of both predictors were entered in Step 1 and failed to account for a significant portion of the variance in
performance-avoidance goals. Results from Step 2 showed that adding teachers’ autonomy support, psychological control, and the interaction of both predictors increased the amount of variance explained by 6% for performance-avoidance goals,
F(6, 505) = 5.78, p < .001. When other predictors were accounted for, teachers’
psychological control positively predicted performance-avoidance goals, β = .37,
p < .01. In Step 3, students’ different perfectionistic tendencies were entered. Adding
these variables increased the amount of variance explained for
performance-avoidance goals by 37%, F(10, 501) = 38.62, p < .001. When other predictors were controlled for, the setting of personal standards and concern over mistakes both positively predicted performance-avoidance goals, β = .42, p < .001 and β = .18, p < .01, respectively. Given that only teachers’ control and
perfectionistic tendencies significantly predicted performance-avoidance goals, the first hypothesis of the current study was partially sustained.
Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Perfectionistic Tendencies
The setting of personal standards. Table 3 provides results of the hierarchical
regressions predicting students’ perfectionistic tendencies. In terms of the setting of personal standards, students’ perceptions of parental autonomy support and
psychological control, along with the interaction of parental support and control were entered in Step 1 and yet failed to predict a significant portion of the variance. Results from Step 2 indicated that adding teachers’ autonomy support, psychological control, and the interaction of both predictors increased the amount of variance explained by 7% for the setting of personal standards, F(6, 505) = 8.85, p < .001. When other predictors were accounted for, students who perceived autonomy support from teachers tended to set higher personal standards, β = .44, p < .001. It turned out that only teachers’ autonomy support significantly predicted the setting of personal standards. The second hypothesis of the present study (i.e., the hypothesis concerning the predictors of perfectionism) was thus partially supported.
The tendency to be organized. The amount of variance explained by the
predicting variables in the first step of analysis was insignificant for the tendency to be organized. Adding teachers’ autonomy support, psychological control, and the interaction of both predictors in Step 2 increased the amount of variance explained for the tendency to be organized by 11%, F(6, 505) = 11.57, p < .001. When other predictors were controlled for, students who perceived autonomy support from teachers tended to lead organized lives, β = .45, p < .001. Because only teachers’ autonomy support significantly predicted the tendency to be organized, the second hypothesis of the current research was partially confirmed.
Concern over mistakes. Students’ perceptions of parental autonomy support and
psychological control, along with the interaction of both predictors were entered in the first regression model and accounted for a significant amount of the variance
(9%) in students’ concern over making mistakes, F(3, 508) = 17.18, p < .001.
Perceived parental psychological control positively predicted concern over mistakes, β = .44, p < .001. Adding teachers’ autonomy support, psychological control, and the interaction of both predictors in Step 2 did not significantly increase the amount of variance explained for students’ concern over mistakes. Hence, the second hypothesis of the present study was only partially sustained.
Doubts about the quality of performance. The amount of variance (9%)
explained by students’ perceptions of parental autonomy support and psychological control, as well as the interaction of both predictors in the first step of the analysis was significant for students’ doubts about the quality of their performance, F(3, 508) = 16.21, p < .001. Perceived parental psychological control is positively associated with doubts about the quality of performance, β = .49, p < .001. Adding teachers’ autonomy support, psychological control, and the interaction of teachers’ support and control in Step 2 failed to significantly increase the amount of variance
explained for doubts about the quality of one’s performance. Therefore, the second hypothesis of the current study was only partially supported.
Differences between Adaptive vs. Maladaptive Perfectionists
To determine the differences in key variables of interest between students with different subtypes of perfectionism, participating adolescents were identified as adaptive vs. maladaptive perfectionists. Students’ scores on the adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism scales (Frost et al., 1990) served to identify adolescents who endorsed certain subtype of perfectionism. Participants who scored above the mean on the adaptive perfectionism and below the mean on the maladaptive perfectionism were grouped as adaptive perfectionists. Conversely, those who scored above the mean on the maladaptive perfectionism and below the mean on the adaptive perfectionism were selected as maladaptive perfectionists. In total, 186 out
of 512 students met this rigorous definition, including 91 adaptive perfectionists and 95 maladaptive perfectionists. Table 4 presents the means and standard deviations of the dependent variables according to students’ different perfectionistic orientations.
The assumption for the MANOVA, that is, homogeneity of variance-covariance had been tested before the analysis was performed. Because cell sizes for the
independent variables (i.e., adaptive perfectionists vs. maladaptive perfectionists) were unequal, Box’s M test was conducted first to check for the homogeneity of covariance matrices. The result of this test was not significant (F = 1.25, p > .05), indicating the confirmation of this assumption (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). MANOVA revealed significant effects for perfectionistic orientations, Hotelling’s t = .62, F(8, 177) = 13.76, p < .001, η2 = .38. Results of the univariate analyses indicated significant effects of perfectionistic orientations on perceived parental psychological control, F(1, 184) = 29.19, p < .001, η2 = .14; teachers’ autonomy support, F(1, 184) = 11.80, p = .001, η2 = .06; mastery-approach goals, F(1, 184) = 61.87, p < .001, η2 = .25; and performance-approach goals, F(1, 184) = 37.94, p < .001, η2 = .17. Adaptive perfectionists scored significantly higher on teachers’ autonomy support (M = 3.54 vs. M = 3.20), mastery-approach (M = 4.00 vs. M = 3.12), and performance-approach goals (M = 3.67 vs. M = 2.95) than did
maladaptive perfectionists. In contrast, maladaptive perfectionists (M = 3.06) reported significantly higher levels of perceived parental psychological control than did adaptive perfectionists (M = 2.35). These findings confirmed the third
hypothesis of the present research. There did exist significant differences in
perceptions of parental and teacher autonomy support and psychological control, as well as achievement goal orientations between adaptive and maladaptive
perfectionists.
Findings of the current study lend support to the applicability of the
hierarchical model of achievement motivation proposed by Elliot and his colleagues (Elliot, 2006; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Thrash, 2001) in a Western context to the Taiwanese context. Moreover, this study addresses the paucity of attention to antecedents of goal adoption. As expected, autonomy support vs. psychological control in the family and classroom settings, together with perfectionistic tendencies play predicting roles in Taiwanese adolescents’ achievement goal orientations. Results of the present study reveal that different types of achievement goals serve their underlying teacher, parental, or personality influences and may result in different types of self-regulation. Also, the present findings sustain the effects of autonomy-supportive vs. controlling social environments repeatedly found in Western cultures (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006). Although Taiwanese students are inclined to act primarily in line with the anticipated expectations of parents and teachers (Yang, 1981, 1997), results of the current research corroborate the tenets of SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Specifically, teachers’ autonomy support appears to promote students’ adaptive motivation, whereas parental psychological control is related to their children’s maladaptive perfectionism. Below, several important findings are discussed in more detail.
Predictors of Achievement Goals
Hierarchical regressions were performed in the current study to determine the relative contribution of environmental (autonomy support vs. psychological control) and personal factors (perfectionistic tendencies) in the prediction of adolescents’ achievement goal orientations. Results of this set of analyses partially support the hypothesis formed based upon the hierarchical model of achievement motivation (Elliot, 2006). Depending on the nature of the predicted type of achievement goal, different environmental factors and perfectionistic tendencies function as the
antecedents of goal adoption. In terms of the influences of social contexts, teachers’ autonomy support positively predicts the two types of approach-oriented goals. It may be that autonomy support in classroom settings nurtures students’ aspirations to achieve task mastery (mastery-approach goals) and to demonstrate themselves (performance-approach goals). In contrast, psychologically controlling practices in the classroom context focus students on avoiding failure in order for teacher approval. As it turns out, teachers’ psychological control positively predicts
performance-avoidance goals. Despite the unneglectable role of teaching practices in students’ goal orientations, nevertheless, adolescents’ own perfectionistic tendencies account for a far greater amount of variance in achievement goals than do social contexts.
As Table 2 shows, adding perfectionistic tendencies in the regression models increases a considerable amount of variance (30%~44%) explained for achievement goals, suggesting the pivotal role of personality dispositions in individuals’ goal orientations. It is noteworthy that students’ concern over making mistakes emerges as the key predictor that separates between mastery and performance-approach goal orientations. Elliot and Church (1997) maintained that performance-approach goal regulation represents a motivational hybrid. Specifically, this type of goal may be undergirded by approach (e.g., need for achievement) and avoidance motivation concerns (e.g., fear of failure). The avoidance motivation that partly underlies performance-approach goals, as the present findings indicate, may be rooted in individuals’ maladaptive perfectionistic concern (i.e., concern over mistakes).
The Relations of Autonomy Support vs. Psychological Control to Perfectionism
The present study is the first to examine the relations of autonomy support together with psychological control to the dual aspects of perfectionism. Results from the regressions predicting perfectionistic tendencies partially confirm the
relevant hypothesis and provide evidence for the differentiation between adaptive and maladaptive aspects of perfectionism. Parental psychological control positively predicts both dimensions of maladaptive perfectionism. In contrast, adolescents’ adaptive perfectionistic tendencies are positively predicted by teachers’ autonomy support. The relations of perceived autonomy support from teachers to students’ personality dispositions have not yet been fully explored. Results of the current study not only validate the proposition of SDT concerning the beneficial effects of autonomy support, but also illustrate the role of adaptive teaching practices in pupils’ healthy personality. As for the effects of parental psychological control, such parenting techniques socialize children to determine their self-worth on the basis of the attainment of standards. Inability to meet the standards puts these youngsters’ self-worth on the line. Students are accordingly highly concerned about their performance and afraid to make mistakes.
Profiles of Adaptive vs. Maladaptive Perfectionists
A unique strength of the study design is that it documents the profiles of students with different perfectionistic tendencies. Results of MANOVA confirm the related hypothesis and show the striking differences in perceived interpersonal contexts and achievement goal orientations between adaptive and maladaptive perfectionists. Adaptive perfectionists report higher levels of teachers’ autonomy support and lower levels of parental psychological control than do maladaptive perfectionists. In addition, adaptive perfectionists are more likely to endorse both mastery- and performance-approach goals than maladaptive perfectionists. Such positive personality features as the setting of personal standards of performance combined with a tendency to be organized, while without concern over making mistakes and doubts about actions may arise from social contexts characterized by more support for volitional functioning and less control through intrusive
socialization techniques. Moreover, students with these adaptive personality dispositions are inspired to approach success through pursuing approach-oriented goals. The profiles of adaptive vs. maladaptive perfectionists documented in the current research reveal that adolescents are attuned to cues from the environment that shape their personality tendencies and achievement goal orientations.
Implications for Practice
The present findings show that perceived autonomy support in the classroom context has significant positive effects on the cultivation of students’
approach-oriented goals and adaptive aspects of perfectionism. The quality of students’ self-regulation can be enormously enhanced by an autonomy-supportive rather than controlling style that the teacher adopts. Autonomy support requires the teacher’s willingness to enter into relationships from the students’ perspective to encourage initiative, nurture inner motivational resources (e.g., intrinsic motivation), and communicate in informational, noncontrolling language (Reeve, 2006).
Specifically, the promotion of autonomy can be accomplished by communicating a clear acknowledgement of students’ perspectives, creating opportunities for students to work in their own way, supporting their experimentation, and providing choices (Reeve, 2006).
Another implication that can be drawn from the findings concerns the relation of parental psychological control to maladaptive perfectionism. When adolescents perceive their parents as psychologically controlling, they are likely to be driven by punitive internal pressures. As a result, these individuals tend to pursue high
standards in a rigid fashion and engage in harsh self-evaluation when the standards are not met (Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). Given that the current study was carried out in a non-Western context where filial piety, devotion to parents, is highly valued, the effects of parental control on maladaptive personality tendencies were
not mitigated by cultural background. Interventions addressing dysfunctional
behaviors, thoughts, and emotions stemming from maladaptive perfectionism should be implemented with the knowledge of these consistently found effects.
Limitations and Future Research
Although results of the present study provide insights into the interplay among achievement goal orientations, perfectionistic tendencies, and social environments, there are several limitations that need to be addressed in future research. First, findings of the study are all based upon self-report measures. Future research should benefit from incorporating other methods of data collection, such as interviews or parents’ and teachers’ reports. Second, the regression procedure employed in the current research does not allow illumination of the pathways among perceived interpersonal contexts, perfectionistic tendencies, and achievement goal orientations. It is likely that perfectionism mediates the effects of the family and classroom contexts on the person’s goal orientations. Future research using structural equation modeling to test the hypothesized path model is encouraged. Finally, because of the correlational nature of the design, conclusions regarding clear causal relations among variables of interest cannot be drawn. Longitudinal studies that explore the long-term effects of interpersonal contexts on adolescents’ perfectionistic tendencies and achievement goal orientations may help clarify the direction of these effects. Such research has the potential for effective interventions fostering adaptive personality tendencies as well as achievement behaviors.
Note
This study was supported by grant no. NSC 98-2410-H-004-005 from the National Science Council, Taiwan. Special thanks go to Yu-Ting Huang and Guan-Hua Chen for their assistance with this project.
References
Benjamin, J. (2006). Cross cultural comparison of rural education practice in China, Taiwan, and the United States. Paper presented at the 2006 Annual Conference of American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A. L., & Antony, M. M. (2004). Is perfectionism good, bad, or both? Examining models of the perfectionism construct. Personality and
Individual Differences, 36, 1373-1385.
Bieling, P. J., Israeli, A., Smith, J., Antony, M. M. (2003). Making the grade: The behavioural consequences of perfectionism in the classroom. Personality and
Individual Differences, 35, 163-178.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp.
136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of
Personality, 62, 119-142.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and the “why” of goal pursuits:
Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642-650.
Dunkley, D. M., Blankstein, K. R., Masheb, R. M., & Grilo, C. M. (2006). Personal standards and evaluative concerns dimensions of “clinical” perfectionism: A
reply to Shafran et al. (2002, 2003) and Hewitt et al. (2003). Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 44, 63-84.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals.
Educational Psychologist, 34, 149-169.
Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation.
Motivation and Emotion, 30, 111-116.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 218-232.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A meditational analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 968-980.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 613-628.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 139-156. Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., & Clara, I. (2002). Adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism:
Developmental origins and association with depression proneness. Personality
and Individual Differences, 33, 921-935.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An overview of theoretical, definitional, and treatment issues. In P. L. Hewitt & G. L. Flett (Eds.). Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 5-31). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18, 39-50.
Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison of two measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 14, 119-126.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C. M., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449-468.
Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 508-517.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism.
Psychology, 15, 27-33.
Hambleton, R. K. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progress report. Bulletin of the International Test Commission, 10, 229-244. Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R.
Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 349-366.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2002). LISREL 8.52. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software. Kawamura, K. Y., Frost, R. O., & Harmatz, M. G. (2002). The relationship of
perceived parenting styles to perfectionism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 32, 317-327.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. K. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. K. (2003). Models of agency: Sociocultural diversity in the construction of action. In V. Murphy-Berman & J. J. Berman (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 49. Cross-cultural differences in
perspectives on the self (pp. 1-57). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analysis. Psychological Methods, 7, 64-82.
Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their students benefit. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 225-236. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American
Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and projective assessments of individual differences in children’s perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 550-558. Shek, D. T. L. (2006). Assessment of perceived parental psychological control in
Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Research on Social Work Practice, 16, 382-391.
Slade, P. D., & Owens, R. G. (1998). A dual process model of perfectionism based on reinforcement theory. Behavior Modification, 22, 372-390.
Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review, 30, 74-99.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyten, P., Duriez, B., & Goossens, L. (2005). Maladaptive perfectionistic self-representations: The meditational link between psychological control and adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences,
38, 487-498.
Stoeber, J., Harris, R. A., & Moon, P. S. (2007). Perfectionism and the experience of pride, shame, and guilt: Comparing healthy perfectionists, unhealthy
perfectionists, and non-perfectionists. Personality and Individual Differences,
43, 131-141.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tacq, J. (1997). Multivariate analysis techniques in social science research: From
problem to analysis. London: Sage.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41, 19-31.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 767-779.
Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 236-250.
Yang, K. S. (1981). Social orientation and individual modernity among Chinese students in Taiwan. Journal of Social Psychology, 113, 159-170.
Yang, K. S. (1997). Theories and research in Chinese personality: An indigenous approach. In H. S. Kao & D. Sinha (Eds.), Asian perspectives on psychology (pp. 236-262). New Delhi, India: Sage.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables (N =512)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Parental autonomy support __
2. Parental psychological control -.49** __
3. Teacher autonomy support .20** -.15** __
4. Teacher psychological control -.10 .48** -.30** __
5. Personal standards .07 .05 .25** .04 __
6. Organization .12** -.05 .34** -.06 .63** __
7. Concern over mistakes -.04 .28** .06 .17** .59** .29** __
8. Doubts about actions -.02 .26** .04 .19** .33** .22** .52** __
9. Mastery-approach goals .11* -.03 .32** -.01 .63** .61** .24** .17** __
11. Performance-approach goals .05 .01 .30** .03 .70** .57** .46** .21** .68** .57** __
12. Performance-avoidance goals .03 .01 .02 .30** .63** .18 .46** .24** -.24** .65** .73** __
M 2.40 2.77 3.32 2.27 3.03 3.44 2.59 2.91 3.42 3.19 3.24 3.30
SD .84 .94 .71 .73 8.42 .89 .80 .85 .90 .88 .96 .97
Table 2
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Achievement Goals (N= 512)
Mastery-approach goals Mastery-avoidance goals Performance-approach goals Performance-avoidance goals
Variable β t △R2 β t △R2 β t △R2 β t △R2 Step 1 .00 .03 .00 .01 Parental support .22 1.75 .47*** 3.72 .10 .78 .23 1.83 Parental control .13 1.05 .37** 3.07 .07 .58 .21 1.73 Parental support × control -.11 -.90 -.30 -.2.40 -.02 -.22 -.19 -1.54 Step 2 .11 .02 .10 .06 Parental support .18 1.55 .44*** 3.52 .06 .48 .18 1.51 Parental control .13 1.10 .34** 2.80 .05 .43 .17 1.41
Parental support × control -.15 -1.25 -.28 -2.22 -.06 -.48 -.19 -1.58 Teacher support .31** 2.47 .29 2.29 .37** 2.92 .12 .80 Teacher control .06 .37 .22 1.27 .18 1.11 .37** 2.13 Teacher support × control -.04 -.25 -.09 -.48 -.06 -.32 -.26 -.15 Step 3 .37 .30 .44 .37 Parental support .04 .51 .29 2.29 -.10 -1.17 .02 .26 Parental control .01 .06 .17 1.68 -.12 -1.42 -.02 -.21 Parental support × control -.05 -.61 -.17 -1.68 .05 .56 -.09 -.92 Teacher support -.01 -.07 .02 .26 .05 .56 .12 1.24
Teacher control -.12 -.94 .04 .30 -.01 -1.11 .18 1.35 Teacher support × control .19 1.44 .04 .30 .10 .81 -.12 -.83 Personal standards .40*** 8.01 .43*** 7.93 .48*** 10.31 .42*** 8.16 Organization .33*** 7.66 .14** 2.87 .21*** 5.07 .12 1.42 Concern over mistakes .02 .51 .08 1.73 .15*** 3.53 .18** 3.83 Doubts about actions -.05 -1.24 .01 .78 -.07 -2.02 -.02 -.55 Note. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Table 3
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Perfectionistic Tendencies (N= 512)
Personal standards Organization Concern over mistakes Doubts about actions
Variable β t △R2 β t △R2 β t △R2 β t △R2 Step 1 .02 .01 .09 .09 Parental support .29 2.32 .20 1.58 .23 1.92 .21 1.60 Parental control .27 2.28 .08 .68 .44*** 3.75 .49*** 4.20 Parental support × control -.17 -1.38 -.08 -.72 -.11 -.92 -.18 -1.53 Step 2 .07 .11 .01 .01 Parental support .25 2.02 .15 1.30 .21 1.76 .21 1.60 Parental control .26 2.17 .10 .88 .42*** 3.55 .46*** 3.85
Parental support × control -.17 -1.44 -.09 -.81 -.11 -.96 -.19 -1.64 Teacher support .44*** 3.46 .45*** 3.56 .16 1.29 .11 .90 Teacher control .31 1.85 .19 1.14 .13 .80 .12 .71 Teacher support × control -.24 -1.33 -.17 -.94 -.08 -.46 -.02 -.13 Note. *** p < .001.
Table 4
Differences Between Adaptive vs. Maladaptive Perfectionists
Adaptive perfectionists (n = 91) Maladaptive perfectionists (n = 95) F
M SD M SD (Univariate Analyses)
Parental autonomy support 2.54 a .91 2.35 a .82 2.36
Parental psychological control 2.35 b ..82 3.06 a .95 29.19***
Teacher autonomy support 3.54 a .67 3.20b .67 11.80***
Teacher psychological control 2.09 a .64 2.29 a .71 8.20
Mastery-approach goals 4.00 a .77 3.12 b .76 61.87***
Performance-approach goals 3.67 a .83 2.95 b .74 37.94***
Performance-avoidance goals 3.15 a .98 3.28 a .74 1.86
Note. Different subscripts denote significant differences (p < .05) in means according to Tukey’s criteria.
出席國際學術會議心得報告
計畫編號 出席會議之經費核定於 NSC 98-2410-H-004-005 計畫名稱 出席會議之經費核定於「訂做一個他：心理控制/自主支持、完美主義與成 就目標取向間之關係」計畫 出國人員姓名 服務機關及職稱 施淑慎 國立政治大學師資培育中心教授 會議時間地點 8/6/2009 ~8/9/2008 加拿大多倫多 會議名稱 美國心理學會年會發表論文題目 Factors Related to Taiwanese Adolescents’ Reports of Avoidance Strategies
一、參加會議經過
本次美國心理學會年會於 8/6//2009~8/9/2009 在 Metro Toronto Convention Centre 舉 行。大會安排研究者論文發表的場次為 8/9 (日) 之 11:00~11:50 AM，本場為 poster session，主題為””IInnqquuiirriieessiinnEEdduuccaattiioonnaallPPssyycchhoollooggyy＂＂，，除除了了研研究究者者的的研研究究外外，，同場發表 的其他論文主題同樣以學習動機居多，可見該主題始終是教心領域歷久不衰的重點研究 方向。 除了發表論文外，研究者亦參與了幾場主題與個人研究興趣較為相近的研討會。其 中最受啟發的一場是在 8/7 (五) 3:00~3:50 PM 之 Symposium: Research on
Perfectionism—Broadening the Inquiry Agenda。本場研討會共發表三篇論文，主題分別 為：(1) Multidimensional Perfectionism, Coping, and Depression；(2) Cross-National Study of Perfectionism and Social Comparison；(3) Cluster Analysis of the Dyadic Almost-Perfect Scale。其中最受研究者注意的為第二篇論文。該論文比較完美主義特質與社會比較對中 國和美國大學生的影響，得到如下的有趣發現：(1) 完美主義者較非完美主義者更喜歡 進行社會比較。(2) 社會比較與憂鬱間的顯著相關，受到表現與標準間差異 (discrepancy) 的中介。亦即進行社會比較時，若知覺到自己的表現未達所設的標準，便可能產生憂鬱 的情形。（3）與美國的學生相較，中國大學生在其完美主義傾向中，更重視「秩序」(order)、 也更感到自己的表現未達預設的標準。但該論文的作者並未進一步探究造成這種差異的 可能原因。 二、與會心得 由於研究者這兩年將研究聚焦於中學生完美主義傾向與學習歷程間關係之探討，本 場研討會因此讓研究者受益良多。首先，雖然三篇論文所採用的主要研究工具—Almost Perfect Scale (APS) 不同於研究者所採用的 Frost et al. 所編製之 Multidimensional
研究者之共識，本場研討會的主持人 Dr. Frederick Lopez & Dr. Kenneth Rice (二人皆帶領 完美主義研究團隊) 及所有論文發表者皆再三強調這點。因此探究「適應性」與「不適 應性」完美主義如何各自被形塑，應為重要的研究課題。其次，華人文化中的某些價值 觀，例如強調「滿招損、謙受益」，應與上述第二篇論文關於中國學生較傾向認為自己未 達理想標準的發現有關，但該研究者未就此進行探究，殊為可惜。也許日後研究者可以 台灣學生為樣本，探究文化脈絡如何體現在個體的完美主義傾向上。最後，主持人在討 論時段提到：適應性與不適應性完美主義主者在未達所設標準時，採用何種因應策略來 保護自尊，或許正是造成兩種不同型態完美主義的關鍵。該推論很具洞察力，值得以實 證研究加以檢驗。
赴國外研究心得報告
計畫編號 研究經費核定於 NSC 98-2410-H-004-005 計畫名稱 「訂做一個他：心理控制/自主支持、完美主義與成就目標取向間之關係」 出國人員姓名 服務機關及職稱 施淑慎 國立政治大學師資培育中心教授出國時間地點 7/31/2010 ~8/11/2010 San Diego, CA, U.S.A. 國外研究機構 美國加州大學聖地牙哥分校
工作記要：由於研究者獲得國科會 99-100 年專題研究計畫補助之主題：你累了嗎？國中生學 習倦怠相關因素之縱貫性研究，須採用能夠探究個體改變歷程的多變量分析，因此本段期間 之工作重點，在於認識該分析技術—潛在變項模式 (latent variable modeling, LVM)。在閱讀加 州大學聖地牙哥分校科學與工程圖書館藏 (Science and Engineering Library) 之相關書籍中， 研究者對如何利用 LVM 探究在多變量脈絡下的改變歷程，有了較清楚的了解。過往在分析多 波段資料時，大家習於採用重覆量數變異數分析 (repeated measure ANOVA)，這類分析方式 有十分嚴格的基本假定，若違反假定，將造成分析結果的偏誤。相對於此法，LVM 在基本假 定的規範部分寬鬆許多。此外，探究改變歷程的縱貫性研究，常需處理因樣本流失而產生的 遺漏值問題，LVM 可在不需特別處理遺漏值的情況下進行分析，而不會影響資料的正確性。 以下即介紹幾種常用之分析模式。 若研究者的興趣在於觀察具共變項的情況下，單一變項隨時間變化的軌跡，則應採取 Intercept-and-Slope Model 進行資料分析。例如在控制住父母教養風格及個人學習動機的情況 下，探究高中生升大學的意願，在三年就學期間所呈現的變化，就可以採用此模式。研究者 可在一開始即針對父母教養風格作一次性的施測，而升學抱負及學習動機則在高中三年進行 重覆施測。在此，研究者探究的焦點為升學抱負，父母教養風格及學習動機分別為不隨時間 變化 (time-invariant) 及隨時間變化 (time-varying) 之共變項。表示方式為 Yit = ai + bi (t-1) ctCit + eit K1i = k1 + λ1ηi +δ1i K2i = k2 + λ2ηi +δ2i ai = α0 + β0ηi + gi bi = α1 +β1ηi + hi 上述式子中，δ1i、δ2i、 gi與 hi為誤差項，α0、α1、k1與 k2則為截距 (intercept) 之未知 參數，至於β0、β1、λ1與λ2則為斜率 (slope) 之未知參數。
