虛幻的自我知覺：自我提升對於台美青少年學業表現之短期及長期代價

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文 Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, National Taiwan Normal University Doctoral Dissertation. 指導教授：陳學志教授 Advisor: Dr. Hsueh-Chih Chen. 虛幻的自我知覺：自我提升對於台美青少年學業表現之短期及長期代價 Illusory self-perceptions: Short and long term costs of self-enhancement for academic performance in Taiwanese and American Adolescents. 研究生：吳相儀撰 Graduate: Hsiang-Yi Wu 中華民國一百零二年六月 June, 2013.

(2) 誌. 謝～只要找到路，就不怕路遙遠～. Do not worry about a distant journey as long as you find the way. 九年的師大心輔所碩博班是我人生的黃金歲月，過程不斷挑戰極限並達到自我實現，一切都要感恩一路走來許多貴人相助。其中，最難得的經歷莫過於至美國短期進修，感謝 Dr. Puncky Heppner 大力推薦，讓我能順利至美國賓州大學正向心理學中心和優秀學者 Dr. Angela Duckworth 以及 Dr. Young Hoon-Kim 合作，開啟了這個跨文化的研究，至今終於有初步成果撰寫成論文。感恩這些年來的指導教授－幽默大師陳學志博士，總在輕鬆對談中不失治學嚴謹，細心指導下不忘讚美鼓勵，讓我能更從容的悠遊於正向心理學領域中。也感恩口試委員毛國楠博士、邱發忠博士、林耀南博士、劉政宏博士、高琦玲博士對於論文的悉心審閱，提供建設性指導，讓論文得以趨於完善。學志老師帶領的 612 研究室精英團隊是強大精神支柱，芝君學姐、佳成隔著太平洋幫我打理寄發問卷事宜，一些雜事也常麻煩博聖、雨霖、清麟、襄瑜、乃華、瑛霞，還有雨臻學姐、玉燕以及研究室裡每位夥伴的溫情鼓舞（人數過於龐大無法一一細數請見諒！），以及系辦瑩玲、和青、玉珊三位助教及娟姐、小黑的行政支援，亦是重要助力。施測時亦動用大量人力，收集的資料幾乎是這本論文的好幾倍，在此要特別感謝施測當年的臺北市立大同高中李慶宗校長、莊智鈞主任、新北市立忠孝國中賴怡妏老師、苗栗縣竹南高中陳佳琪老師、陳廷宇老師、新竹縣竹北國中陳馨怡老師等人鼎力相助以及提供後續的資料，雖然本論文只呈現初步結果，但也期待未來能將繼續所有資料分析研究。學校方面要感謝新竹市內湖國小胡如茵校長以及前任林貞秀校長對於進修支持鼓勵，歷屆人事包括小梅、佳麗姐、佳君行政上全力協助，連主任、翠祝主任、齊隆主任、茂裕 i.

(3) 主任親切問候，以及同學年的同事惠雯、曉娟、碧春、佩珊的體諒包容，還有 Ian、美慧、滿玉、佳玲、玫華、亞璇、秀珠、佩諄、雪貞、梅英、香君、美鳳姐頻頻關懷，由衷感謝校內每位默默關心我的同事、家長及小朋友們。（人數過於龐大無法一一細數敬請見諒！）親友團方面則包括美國 Dr. Angela Duckworth 的助理 Kelly 和 Caroline、美國好友 Kaori、Johnson、Corey 的關懷協助，台灣方面有一輩子的死黨小羽、沛昀、怡親，以及 Bruce、小熊的適時幫忙，讓我更勇往向前！最後，要感謝父母和所有家人一路以來的護持，尤其弟弟致暐如同後浪般緊追在後互相砥礪，而志偉更是提供全方位諮詢及陪伴，你們是我精神上永遠的支柱。畢業不是終點，而是志業的起點，期待自己能夠知福、惜福，並發揮稟賦將所學造福社會，to be continued…. ～有心就有福，有願就有力～ Intentions beget blessings, vows beget strength.. ii.

(4) 中文摘要儘管在美國文化中普遍的觀念認為自我提升是有益的，但實證證據卻仍存在歧異。本研究將採用一個改良的研究方法來修正過去研究中操作上的不足，並針對台美青少年的自我提升提供理論分析。研究一欲建立出潛藏於自我提升傾向下的動機，以檢視台灣青少年自我提升與學業成績之關係，研究對象為 214 位台灣七年級的國中學生，研究方法為請受試者完成數學測驗後，將受試者自評答對題數、實際答對題數、提供金錢獎勵再次自評答對題數，分析這三者間的殘差與學期總成績之關係。研究二則是採用與研究一同樣的研究方法探討台灣和美國青少年自我提升與數學學期總成績之關係，研究對象為 214 位台灣七年級的國中學生以及 128 位美國七年級和十年級學生。研究三追蹤研究二所有參與者的自我提升與後續四個學期的數學學期總成績之長期關係。研究四則是檢定毅力為自我知覺和學業表現之中介變項的假定，研究對象與研究一相同。本研究主要發現如下：（1）本研究的改良工具，在研究一產生三種比較方式並證實了動機偏誤。首先，驗證台灣青少年「正確自我評估者」短期學業成績較「自我貶抑者」和「自我提升者」為佳；其次，發現「無意的正確自我評估者」短期學業成績較「無意的自我貶抑者」和「無意的自我提升者」為佳；最後，「有意的自我貶抑者」的短期學業成績較「有意的自我提升者」和「有意的正確評估者」為佳。（2）研究二在台灣和美國青少年短期數學成績也採用和研究一同樣的三種比較方式，只有在「有意的自我評估」這一項，台灣「有意的自我貶抑者」成績優於「有意的正確評估者」和「有意的自我提升者」；其他的五種比較結果均為「正確自我評估者」短期數學成績最好。（3）研究三將所蒐集的資料包括自我提升（無意的自我評估和有意的自我評估）、國家（台灣和美國）、以及數學學期總成績（四個學期）進行三因子混合設計變異數分析，結果發現在「無意的自我評估」方面，無論是台灣和美國青少年，四個學期的數學成績均為「無意的正確自我評估者」表現最好，其次為「無意的自我提升者」及「無意的自我貶抑者」；然而，在「有意的自我評估」方面，三因子交互作用達顯著，主要結果有二方面，首先，台灣學生「有意的自我貶抑者」四個學期的數學成績均優於「有意的正確評估者」和「有意的自我提升者」，美國「有意的自我貶抑者」有三個學期的數學成績優於「有意的自我提升者」；其次，就「有意的自我提升者」的受試者而言，美國人有兩個學期的數學成績優於台灣人，就「有意的自我貶抑者」的受試者來說，台灣人四個學期的數 iii.

(5) 學成績表現均優於美國人。（4）研究四在「無意的自我評估」中，毅力是自我知覺偏誤與學業表現之中介變項；然而，在「有意的自我評估」中，毅力則無中介效果。本研究對理論、研究及實務皆具義涵，貢獻包括：（1）創建了一個改良的方法，修正過去研究中操作上的不足，為此領域踏出重要的一步。（2）建構出自我提升完整的構念以及澄清其潛藏之動機偏誤（3）國內外第一個採用此創新方法，去區分出自我提升在跨文化的差異，尤其是進一步釐清台灣人的自我貶抑偏誤。關鍵字: 自我提升、自我貶抑、自我知覺、學業表現、跨文化. iv.

(6) Abstract It is widely accepted in American society that self-enhancement is beneficial, but the evidences supporting this idea are contradicted. In this study, a theoretical analysis for understanding self-enhancement among Taiwanese and America adolescents is provided by using a refined methodology which reduced the errors that occurred from previous research. Study 1 was to identify the motivation underlying the self-enhancing tendency for academic performance among. Taiwanese. adolescents. via. an. amended. methodology. which. is. measuring. self-enhancement through the residual discrepancy among perceived performance without incentive, perceived performance with incentive, and actual performance. The participants included 214 Taiwanese students in seventh grade. Study 2 was to understand the short term relationship between self-enhancement and mathematics achievement in Taiwanese and American adolescents via the same amended methodology in Study1. The participants included 214 Taiwanese students in seventh grade and 128 American students of seventh and tenth grades. Study 3 was to tracks the prediction of mathematics achievement in Taiwanese and American adolescents across four semesters. The participants in Study 3 are the same as Study 2. Study 4 was to test the hypothesis that grit mediates the relationship between self-perception and academic performance. The participants in Study 4 are the same as Study 1. Results showed that (1) The refined methodology leads to three types of analysis and demonstrate a motivational bias for Taiwanese adolescents in Study 1. First, self-enhancers and self-effacers show lower short term academic performance than accurate self-assessors. Second, self-enhancers unintentionally and self-effacers unintentionally show lower short term academic performance than accurate self-assessors unintentionally. Lastly, self-effacers intentionally outperformed self-enhancers intentionally and accurate self-assessors intentionally. (2) Three types of analysis in Study 1 were conducted on Taiwanese and American adolescents respectively in Study 2. That self-effacers intentionally outperformed their peers in school only showed in Taiwanese adolescents. For the v.

(7) other analysis, whether self-assessing unintentionally or intentionally, the results all reveal accurate self-assessors outperformed their peers for short term mathematics achievement. (3) A three-way ANOVA for country, type of self-perception and semester was conducted on the mathematics achievement in Study3. For self-assessing unintentionally, the results showed that during the four semesters, no matter in Taiwan or in the U.S., the mathematics achievement was highest in accurate self-assessors unintentionally, then in self-enhancer unintentionally and lowest in self-effacer unintentionally. However, for self-assessing intentionally, the three-way interaction was significant. First, for Taiwanese, the mathematics achievement was highest in self-effacer intentionally, then in accurate self-assessors intentionally, and lowest in self-enhancer intentionally in four semesters. For Americans, the mathematics achievement was higher in self-effacer intentionally than self-enhancer intentionally in three semesters. Second, for self-enhancer intentionally, Americans outperformed Taiwanese in two semesters. For self-effacer intentionally, Taiwanese outperformed Americans in four semesters. (4) In Study4, for self-assessing unintentionally, the results showed that grit mediates the relationship between self-perception bias and academic performance. For self-assessing intentionally, the results showed that grit was not a significant mediator between self-perception intentionally and academic performance. The article concludes with implications for theory, research and practice. First of all, a major force of the present research is methodological. This research has taken a step in the direction of defining and measuring self-enhancement via a refined methodology. Second, this research provides a precise construct of self-enhancement and demonstrates the motivational bias. Lastly, this is the first study use refined methodology to distinguish the difference of self-enhancement between the cultures, especially the self-effacing bias in Taiwan. Keywords:. self-enhancement,. self-effacement,. cross-culture vi. self-perception,. academic. performance,.

(8) Table of Contents 誌. 謝 ............................................................................................................................................... i. 中文摘要 .........................................................................................................................................iii Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ v Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xii Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Motivation and Significance .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose of the Present Study .............................................................................................. 4 1.3 Terminology ....................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Self-enhancement & Motivational Bias ............................................................................. 7 2.2 Methodological Issues ........................................................................................................ 9 2.3 Related Prediction: Academic Performance and Grit ...................................................... 12 2.4 Self-Enhancement in Cross-Cultural Contexts ................................................................ 15 2.4 Hypotheses in the present study ....................................................................................... 17 Chapter 3 Study 1: Short Term Costs of Self-enhancement for Academic Performance in Taiwanese Adolescents ................................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Method ............................................................................................................................. 19 3.2 Result................................................................................................................................ 23 Chapter 4 Study 2: Short Term Costs of Self-enhancement for Mathematics Achievement in Taiwanese and American Adolescents ........................................................................................... 30 4.1 Method ............................................................................................................................. 30 vii.

(9) 4.2 Result................................................................................................................................ 31 Chapter 5 Study 3: Long Term Costs of Self-enhancement for Mathematics Achievement in Taiwanese and American Adolescents ........................................................................................... 45 5.1 Method ............................................................................................................................. 45 5.2 Result................................................................................................................................ 46 Chapter 6 Study 4: Grit as a Mediator for Self-Perception and Academic Performance ............... 64 6.1 Method ............................................................................................................................. 64 6.2 Result................................................................................................................................ 66 Chapter 7 GENERAL DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 70 7.1 Theoretical implications ................................................................................................... 70 7.2 Practical implications ....................................................................................................... 72 7.3 Contributions .................................................................................................................... 73 7.3 Limitations and Future Directions.................................................................................... 74 References ...................................................................................................................................... 76 Appendix ........................................................................................................................................ 86 A.1 Math test in Taiwan ......................................................................................................... 86 A.2 Measuring self-perception scores .................................................................................... 90 A.3 Measuring self-perception with incentive ....................................................................... 91 A.4 Math test in America ....................................................................................................... 92 A.5 Measuring self-perception scores in America ................................................................. 95. viii.

(10) List of Tables Table 3.2a Summary of the relationship between initial residual discrepancies and academic performance in Study 1 .................................................................................................................. 24 Table 3.2b Summary of the relationship between adjusted residual discrepancies and academic performance in Study 1 .................................................................................................................. 26 Table 3.2c Summary of the relationship between residual discrepancy-change and academic performance in Study 1 .................................................................................................................. 28 Table 4.2a Summary of the relationship between initial residual discrepancies and mathematics achievement in Study 2 (Taiwanese Adolescents) ......................................................................... 33 Table 4.2b Summary of the relationship between adjusted residual discrepancies and mathematics achievement in Study 2 (Taiwanese Adolescents) ......................................................................... 35 Table 4.2c Summary of the relationship between residual discrepancy-change and mathematics achievement in Study 2 (Taiwanese Adolescents) ......................................................................... 37 Table 4.2d Summary of the relationship between initial residual discrepancies and mathematics achievement in Study 2 (American Adolescents) .......................................................................... 39 Table 4.2e Summary of the relationship between adjusted residual discrepancies and mathematics achievement in Study 2 (American Adolescents) .......................................................................... 41 Table 4.2f Summary of the relationship between residual discrepancy-change and mathematics achievement in Study 2 (American Adolescents) .......................................................................... 43 Table 5.2a ....................................................................................................................................... 48 Means and Standard Deviations of Dependent Variables According to Countries, Semesters, and Type of Self-Perception (Self-perception measured by adjusted residual discrepancy) ................ 48 Table 5.2b ....................................................................................................................................... 49 Three Way ANOVA table for Countries, Semesters, and Type of Self-Perception (Self-perception ix.

(11) measured by adjusted residual discrepancy) .................................................................................. 49 Table 5.2c ....................................................................................................................................... 52 Means and Standard Deviations of Dependent Variables According to Countries, Semesters, and Type of Self-Perception (Self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change).................. 52 Table 5.2d ....................................................................................................................................... 53 Three Way ANOVA table for Countries, Semesters, and Type of Self-Perception (Self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change) .................................................................................... 53 Table 5.2e ....................................................................................................................................... 54 Two Way interaction simple main effect table for Countries, Semesters, and Type of Self-Perception (Self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change) ............................... 54 Table 5.2f ........................................................................................................................................ 55 Simple simple main effect table for Type of Self-Perception and Countries in Semester1 (Self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change) ......................................................... 55 Table 5.2g ....................................................................................................................................... 56 Simple simple main effect table for Type of Self-Perception and Countries in Semester2 (Self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change) ......................................................... 56 Table 5.2i ........................................................................................................................................ 57 Simple simple main effect table for Type of Self-Perception and Countries in Semester3 (Self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change) ......................................................... 57 Table 5.2j ........................................................................................................................................ 58 Simple simple main effect table for Type of Self-Perception and Countries in Semester4 (Self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change) ......................................................... 58 Table 5.2k ....................................................................................................................................... 59 Simple simple main effect table for Type of Countries and Semester in self-effacer intentionally (Self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change) ......................................................... 59 x.

(12) Simple simple main effect table for Type of Self-perception and Semester in the U.S. (Self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change) ......................................................... 60 Table 6.2a Regression Analysis to Test Mediation Effect of Grit on Academic Performance (self-perception measured by adjusted residual discrepancy) ........................................................ 67 Table 6.2b Regression Analysis to Test Mediation Effect of Grit on Academic Performance (self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change) ......................................................... 69. xi.

(13) List of Figures Figure 3.2a. Curvilinear relationship between initial residual discrepancies and academic performance in Study 1 .................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 3.2b Curvilinear relationship between adjusted residual discrepancies and academic performance in Study 1 .................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 3.2c. Curvilinear relationship between residual discrepancy-change and academic performance in Study 1 .................................................................................................................. 28 Figure 4.2a. Curvilinear relationship between initial residual discrepancies and mathematics achievement in Study 2 (Taiwanese Adolescents) ......................................................................... 33 Figure 4.2b Curvilinear relationship between adjusted residual discrepancies and mathematics achievement in Study 2 (Taiwanese Adolescents) ......................................................................... 35 Figure 4.2c. Curvilinear relationship between residual discrepancy-change and mathematics achievement in Study 2 (Taiwanese Adolescents) ......................................................................... 37 Figure 4.2d Curvilinear relationship between initial residual discrepancies and mathematics achievement in Study 2 (American Adolescents) .......................................................................... 39 Figure 4.2e Curvilinear relationship between adjusted residual discrepancies and mathematics achievement in Study 2 (American Adolescents) .......................................................................... 41 Figure 4.2f. Curvilinear relationship between residual discrepancy-change and mathematics achievement in Study 2 (American Adolescents) .......................................................................... 43 Figure 5.2a. Interaction plots for Country and Type of Self-Perception on the mathematics achievement. (Self-perception measured by adjusted residual discrepancy) ................................. 50 Figure 5.2b. Interaction plots for Country and Type of Self-Perception on the mathematics achievement in Semester 1. (Self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change) ............ 61 Figure 5.2c. Interaction plots for Country and Type of Self-Perception on the mathematics xii.

(14) achievement in Semester 2. (Self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change) ............ 61 Figure 5.2d. Interaction plots for Country and Type of Self-Perception on the mathematics achievement in Semester 3. (Self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change) ............ 62 Figure 5.2e. Interaction plots for Country and Type of Self-Perception on the mathematics achievement in Semester 4. (Self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change) ............ 62 Figure 6.2a Path diagram of the mediation effect of grit on academic performance. (self-perception measured by adjusted residual discrepancy) Values on paths are standardized β. * p < .05. *** p < .001. .................................................................................................................. 68 Figure 6.2b Path diagram of the mediation effect of grit on academic performance. (self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change) Values on paths are standardized β. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. ................................................................................................ 69. xiii.

(15) Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Motivation and Significance The focus of psychology has shifted over the past decades from an emphasis on psychological dysfunction to positive psychology, that focuses on the function of “positive” variables like optimism, psychological health and well-being, and life satisfaction (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyu, 2000; Sheldon & King, 2001). From the standpoint of positive psychology, one of the major preoccupations of psychologist has been investigating the self-enhancement related variables such as optimism and hope that have been related to positive psychological functioning and to other character strengths (Aspinwall & Staudinger, 2003; Peterson, 2006; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Snyder & Lopes, 2007). On the basis of Taylor and Brown’s (1988) review, researchers found healthy individuals often engaged in a variety of self-enhancing behaviors (e.g., overly positive self-evaluations, exaggerated perceptions of personal control, and unrealistic optimism for the self). And, self-enhancement has gathered great importance for understanding why and how individuals remain positive and resilient despite negative experiences (Hoyle, Kernis, Leary, & Baldwin, 1999). Therefore, in the previous decade, the emergence of a positive focus in psychology gave rise to the popular but unfounded belief that “feeling good about oneself is a key to fulfilling one’s potentials”. This folk theory, especially the emphasis on the benefits of self-enhancement (e.g., reinforcing positive self-perceptions, providing unrealistically positive performance feedback) is featured in numerous popular books, the media, and daily communications (Miller, Wang, Sandel, & Cho, 2002). Indeed, the fact that people evaluate themselves better than an average peer is a recognized phenomenon in social psychology. For, example, a College Board (1976-1977) survey of nearly one million high school seniors found that only 2% of them perceived themselves to be worse 1.

(16) than average on leadership ability, and no respondents believed that they were worse than average on the ability to get along with others. Cross (1977) noted that more than 94% of university professors thought that they had better-than-average teaching ability; even college students rated themselves as better than average on 38 of 40 positive personality traits (Alicke, Klotz, Breitenbecher, Yurak, & Vredenburg, 1995). However, is self-enhancement always beneficial? Past findings on the effects of self-enhancement have been problematic. On the one hand, some evidence seems to support the idea that self-enhancing (holding a more positive view of oneself than is accurate) can result in favorable outcomes, including improved emotional well-being (Brown & Dutton, 1995; Taylor & Brown, 1988; Taylor, Lerner, Sherman, Sage, & McDowell, 2003a; 2003b; Gramzow, Willard, & Mendes, 2008), and better psychological health (e.g., higher happiness, better psychological adjustment, lower depression; see Taylor & Brown, 1988; Taylor et.al.,2003a). Positive self-perceptions are also related to increased motivation, persistence (e.g., Bandura, 1977; Baumeister & Tice, 2006; Felson, 1984; Isen & Daubman, 1984; Isen & Means, 1983), and performance (e.g., Baumeister, Hamilton, & Tice, 1985). On the other hand, the negative consequences of overly positive illusions about oneself have also been reported (Colvin & Griffo, 2008; Colvin, Block, & Funder, 1995; Colvin & Block, 1994a; Colvin & Block, 1994b; Greham, Lane, ManMillan, Bocian, & Ward, 2000; Robins & Beer, 2001; Klein & Cooper, 2008; Klein & Cerully, 2007; Kurt & Paulhus, 2008; Kwan, John, Robins, & Kuang, 2008; McNulty, O’Mara, & Karney, 2008;. McNulty & Karney, 2004; Kim, Zou, & Chiu, 2010; Kim & Chiu, 2011). For. instance, the degree of overly positive self-assessments of personality characteristics predicts more maladjustment and relational problems (Colvin et al., 1995; Greham et al., 2000). Gresham et al. (2000) noted that illusory positive self-perceptions are correlated with poorer social skills, more problem behaviors, and lower academic competence. Similarly, Kwan et al. (2008) have noted that the self-enhancement bias is associated with lower levels of resilience, higher levels of 2.

(17) defensiveness, poorer social skills, high levels of narcissism, and lower grade point averages (GPA). Thus, the effects of illusory positive self-perceptions can be seen to be inconsistent and confusing. These studies appear to contradict one another, and the reasons could be methodological disparities in previous research both in definition and measurement of self-enhancement. And, on conventional measures of self-enhancement, East Asians' apparently inconsistent and weak tendencies to self-enhance should not be seen as an absense of self-enhancement in these cultures (Brown, 2003; Kim, Chiu, Peng, Cai, & Tov, 2010; Kurman, 2003). Although the self-enhancement motive might be present in East Asian cultures, it may expressed in subtle forms. Some investigators have advised inquiry into how self-enhancement operates among diverse populations (Chang et al., 2008; Chang & Asakawa, 2003; Chang, Asakawa, & Sanna, 2001; Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003), because the majority of conclusions about self-enhancement have been based on Caucasian North American subjects. For instance, Heine and his colleagues (1999) stated, “the need for positive self-regard, as it is currently conceptualized, is not universal, but rather is rooted in significant aspects of North American culture”(p. 766). Kim and Chiu (2011b) observed that whether or not studies identified a need for positive self-regard among East Asians depended on how the phenomenon was defined and measured. In sum, a more precise model of self-enhancement is needed in order to clarify the complexities of this phenomenon (Chang, Chang, Sanna, & Kade, 2008). Thus, the methodological inconsistencies and their consequences in previous research are addressed in detail in Chapter 2. Then, a refined methodology that amends the operational errors of previous research will be outlined. This model does not negate the value of positive thinking, positive attitudes, or general positive self-regard, but holds nonetheless that excessive self-enhancement 3.

(18) can be problematic and even harmful. With a clear definition and refined measures, it will then be possible to undertake a deep theoretical analysis of self-enhancement as expressed among East Asians.. 1.2 Purpose of the Present Study The purpose of the study is to provide a theoretical analysis for understanding self-enhancement in Taiwanese and America adolescents by using a refined methodology that amended the operational errors of previous research. In the following sections, the definition and methodological inconsistencies will be elaborate first, and the comprehensive solutions will be outlined and employed in the study. Study 1 was to identify the motivation underlying the self-enhancing tendency for academic performance among Taiwanese adolescents via amended methodology. Study 2 was to understand the short term costs of self-enhancement for mathematics achievement in Taiwanese and American adolescents. Study 3 was to track the prediction of mathematics achievement in Taiwanese and American Adolescents across four semesters. Study 4 was to test the hypothesis that grit mediates the relationship between self-perception and academic performance.. 1.3 Terminology 1.3.1 Self-enhancement/ self-effacement/ accurate self-assess We enriched Kim, Zou, & Chiu (2010)’s definition which was focusing on motivational self-enhancement. Self-enhancement is operationalized as the extent to which an individual’s self-assessment of performance is greater than his or her actual performance. Therefore, in the present study, we assume that people are relatively accurate at judging their absolute performance level with a monetary incentive, but without the monetary incentive, their perceived performance varied from their actual performance. Therefore, the variation (the difference among the 4.

(19) perceived performance without incentive, the perceived performance with incentive and actual performance) reflect people's motivation to view themselves positively. On the contrary, self-effacement is operationalized as the extent to which an individual’s self-assessment of performance is smaller than his or her actual performance. Therefore, the variation (the difference among the perceived performance without incentive, the perceived performance with incentive and actual performance) reflect people's motivation to view themselves negatively. Finally, accurate self-assessing means individual’s self-assessment of performance is equal to his or her actual performance. Therefore, the variation (the difference among the perceived performance without incentive, the perceived performance with incentive and actual performance) is zero and means they had been accurate both times. 1.3.2 Initial residual discrepancy Initial residual discrepancy was the outcomes when comparing the difference between participants’ perceived performance without incentive and actual performance. Investigators regressed perceived performance without incentive on actual performance. 1.3.2 Adjusted residual discrepancy Adjusted residual discrepancy was the outcomes when comparing the difference between participants’ perceived performance with incentive and actual performance. An adjusted residual discrepancy was created by regressing perceived performance with incentive on actual performance. 1.3.3 Residual discrepancy-change Residual discrepancy-change which comparing the difference between participants’ perceived performance with incentive and participants’ perceived performance without incentive. 5.

(20) A residual discrepancy-change was created by regressing perceived performance with incentive on perceived performance without incentive.. 6.

(21) Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Self-enhancement & Motivational Bias 2.1.1 Definition of self-enhancement What is self-enhancement? Prior literature has failed to establish a coherent construct. Certain terms related to self-enhancement (eg., unrealistic optimism, overly positive self-evaluations, etc.) have been used interchangeably, and different researchers, furthermore, prefer different criteria.. First, some researchers have defined self-enhancement as a trait-like. tendency (Taylor & Brown,1988; Paulhus, 1988; John & Robins, 1994; Asendorph & Ostendorf, 1988; Clovin, Block, & Funder, 1995). Taylor and Brown (1988) defined self-enhancement as a “pervasive, enduring and systematic tendency to hold unrealistically positive self-evaluations”(p. 194) . Second, some scholars have suggested that self-enhancement is a behavior that is situationally responsive and constrained by social norms (Taylor & Armor, 1996; Taylor, Sherman, Sage, & McDowell, 2003). This point of view is problematic because personality traits may operate in the context of situations and social norms, so it fails to distinguish a situationally dependent behavior from a trait (Funder, 1991). Third, some researchers have sought to distinguish self-enhancement from defense mechanisms. They argued that “defense mechanisms result in a distortion of reality, while illusions are simply overly positive subjective evaluations” (Taylor, Collins, Skokan, & Aspinwall, 1989, p.120). This argument suggests that a distortion of reality is in some way different from an overly positive evaluation. Despite all the existing confusion, Chang (2008) noted that the process of self-enhancement may consist of both unconscious and conscious processes. Thus, the assessment of distortion against a reality standard has both philosophical and methodological challenges. In this study, we enriched Kim, Zou, & Chiu (2010)’s definition which was focusing on 7.

(22) motivational self-enhancement. That is, compared with accurate performers, self-enhancers and self-effacers are more motivated to practice self-handicapping. And, self-enhancement is operationalized as the extent to which an individual’s self-assessment of performance is greater than his or her actual performance. Therefore, in the present study, we assume that people are relatively accurate at judging their absolute performance level with a monetary incentive, but without the monetary incentive, their perceived performance varied from their actual performance. As a result, the variation (the difference between perceived performance and actual performance) reflects people's motivation to view themselves positively. 2.1.2 Motivational Bias Two noteworthy explanations that have been proposed for self-enhancement are cognitive bias and motivational bias. On the one hand, according to the cognitive account, people may lack the metacognitive awareness or ability to estimate their performance accurately, so their overly positive self-assessments in fact reflect arbitrary guesses and accidental self-enhancement (Giladi & Klar, 2002; Klar & Giladi, 1997, 1999; Kruger & Dunning, 1999). On the other hand, people may have incentives to perceive or portray themselves as better (or worse) than is accurate, thereby demonstrating a motivational bias (Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003; Sedikides & Strube, 1997; Taylor & Brown, 1988). This study will focus on motivational bias. That is, self-enhancers are motivated to perceive or portray themselves in an embellished way. In addition, the extent of familiarity is needed to be considered. For unfamiliar tasks, people do not have a previous experience to reflect on when assessing their abilities, and so may assess themselves more arbitrarily (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). For familiar tasks, motivational bias is the more likely cause of people estimating inflated or deflated performance, because they already have a notion of how well they previously achieved on that, or similar tasks. Kim and colleagues (2010) applied this rationale by conducting a pilot study to prove that 8.

(23) participants possess some knowledge of their performance on 10 math questions from the Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SATs). And the result showed that 83% of the participants evaluated their performance correctly or near-perfectly, with a correlation of .81 between actual and reported performance. That is, the participants could be accurate when they were explicitly asked to form accurate self-assessment. It means that overly-positive self-assessment on familiar tasks may signify an underlying motivational bias. Therefore, participants have cognitive knowledge of their performance abilities on familiar tasks, and their motivation to self-assess accurately on those tasks could be manipulated.. 2.2 Methodological Issues 2.2.1 Methodological issues in past research A lot of research work has been done in this field to look for the definition and measurement of self-enhancement. However, the operational definitions and measurement of self-enhancement has been proposed in diverse ways and result in different errors (Borkenau, Zaltauskas, & Leising, 2009; Colvin & Block, 1994a; Colvin & Block, 1994b; Colvin et al., 1995; Kwan et al., 2008; Kwan, John, Kenny, Bond, & Robins 2004). Only by solving the measurement issue can we learn the precise results of self-enhancement. First of all, self-report scale is one of the most commonly used methods for measuring self-enhancement, which measures the extent to which individuals report positive self-perceptions. However, it fail to distinguish “self-enhancers (people who perceived that they possess positive qualities when they do not)” from “accurate positive self-assessors (people who perceived that they possess positive qualities when they do) ” (Colvin & Block, 1994a; Colvin et al., 1995). For example, Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-Esteem Scale was one of the most frequently 9.

(24) used measures of self-enhancement. And, having high self-esteem in this scale does not necessarily means one has positive illusions. Thus, self-report scale did not have an accuracy criterion and it is important to measure self-assessment against the subjects’ actual ability, in order to analyze self-enhancement. Second, social comparison and self-insight technique are also frequently used to measure self-enhancement and these do include criterions. However, Kwan and colleagues (2004; 2008) mentioned the limitations of the two methods. On the one hand, in the social comparison technique, self-enhancers were assessed as subjects who more positively assessed themselves than they assess their peers. This was affected by the perceiver effect: where an individual evaluates themselves more positively or negatively, than they assess other people. On the other hand, in the self-insight technique, self-enhancers were individuals who perceived themselves in a more positive way than other people perceived them. This did not remove the target effect: where other people assess the individual more positively or negatively. These operational errors may result in divergent conclusions. Hence, “the inconsistent findings observed in the self-enhancement literature may, in part, reflect differences across studies in the amount of target and perceiver variance,” (Kwan et al., 2008, p. 1074). Third, to remove the perceiver and target effects, Kwan et al. (2008) recommended the use of a componential approach based on the social relations model (SRM) in assessing self-enhancement. However, this approach requires each participant to rate every other participant in the sample. This is both costly and often impossible in studies with a large number of subjects. Lastly, little is known about the underlying mechanism of self-enhancement and so it is measured in inconsistent ways. People may intentionally or unintentional present themselves in embellished ways. That is, self-enhancers are motivated to portray themselves as better (or worse) than is true. Kim, Zou, & Chiu (2010)’s pilot study tried to prove that participants possess some 10.

(25) knowledge of their performance, and their motivation to self-assess accurately on those tasks could be manipulated. Therefore, little research has been done on how to distinguish between individuals who self-enhance intentionally or unintentionally. The improved method will be elaborated in the following sections. 2.2.2 Methodological Remedies in the Current Research The refined methodology in the present study was to address the motivational bias issue, by comparing the difference between participants’ perceived performance (with a monetary incentive) and actual performance. And, it reduced the errors that occurred from the previous researches. First of all, different from self-report scales, this refined methodology includes an accuracy criterion which is the participants’ actual performance. Indeed, some researchers have proposed directly comparing participant’s self-appraisal of their academic performance with their actual performance to detect self-enhancing tendencies (Gramzow et al., 2008; Kwan et al., 2008; Robins & Beers, 2001). And, in the present study, we compared the difference between participants’ perceived performance (with or without incentive) and actual performance. A positive difference score represents self-enhancement (unintentionally or intentionally), a negative score indicates self-effacement (unintentionally or intentionally), and a score of zero or close to zero indicated accurate or close to accurate self-assessment (unintentionally or intentionally). Second, this refined methodology eliminated perceiver effects and target effects. On the one hand, by evaluating themselves on a specific measure (i.e., twenty math questions) rather than being evaluated by peers or a general trait (e.g., academic intelligence) the methodology can avoid perceiver effects. On the other hand, target effects can be avoided because individuals conduct self-assessments instead of being evaluated by others. Therefore, the method used in this 11.

(26) study was derived from the theories of SRM (Kwan et al., 2008), utilizes an accuracy criterion (i.e., actual performance), and removes concern over perceiver and target effects. Lastly, by manipulating monetary incentive, this refined methodology addressed the motivational bias issue. Following Kim, Zou, & Chiu (2010)’s definition, we enriched their method with a monetary incentive. Assume that people are relatively accurate at judging their absolute performance level with a monetary incentive. The variation between perceived performance (with or with incentive) and actual performance reflect people's motivation to view themselves positively. The present study identified the motivation underlying the self-enhancing tendency and proved that some participants can self-assess accurately but choose not to.. 2.3 Related Prediction: Academic Performance and Grit 2.3.1 Academic Performance After establishing this refined methodology, it became clear to test the hypothesis that self-enhancers or self-effacers (unintentionally or intentionally) would obtain lower academic performance than those who self-assessed accurately (unintentionally or intentionally). First, in order to distinguish self-enhancers unintentionally or intentionally, the present study will test Taiwanese adolescents who had the similar results as the previous hypothesis (Kim & Chiu, 2010) in Phase 1 of study 1. According to Kim, Zou, & Chiu (2010)’s research, their results showed that compared with accurate self-assessment, self-enhancement and self-effacement of task performance, are related with lower academic achievement. In addition, self-enhancers felt less need for improvement and therefore were less motivated to achieve. If it is true, self-enhancers or self-effacers unintentionally in Phase 1 of study 1 would experience lower achievement motivation and result in lower academic performance. 12.

(27) Second, for self-enhancers intentionally, we enriched Kim, Zou, & Chiu (2010)’s measurement. In Phase 2 of study 1, the hypothesis is that with a monetary incentive, self-enhancers or self-effacers intentionally would obtain lower academic performance than those who self-assessed accurately intentionally. The reason is the phenomenon of self-handicapping (Snyder & Smith, 1982). Kim, Zou, & Chiu (2010) noted that self-enhancers or self-effacers are more motivated to practice self-handicapping. And, participants have shown this strategy by choosing to work under distraction and by withholding preparatory effort, which inhibits their future performance. On the contrary, those who self-assess accurately have no reason to modify their performance; they can use the accurate information of their present performance to engage in preparatory effort and plan for remedial actions (Försterling & Morgenstern, 2002). Therefore, accurate self-assessment is associated with a reduced tendency to engage in self-handicapping strategies, resulting in better short-term and long-term performance. Lastly, little is known about the prediction of academic performance over time. The definition and the measure of self-enhancement have been mixed, not to mention a lack of literature on this subject. Therefore, this study tracks the prediction of academic performance within self-enhancers, accurate self-assessors, and self-effacers across four consecutive semesters.. 2.3.2 Grit One of the purposes of this present study was to address that grit mediates the relationship between self-perception and academic performance. The definition of grit is a trait-level perseverance and passion for long-term goals (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, and Kelly, 2007). One reason to focus on grit is that positive psychology has become more focused on the empirical study of characters and in particular, perseverance (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The other reason 13.

(28) is that it is crucial to have dynamic, integrative models that include cognitive, motivational, and integrative models in the educational psychology field. According to Snow(1994) and Corno et al.,’s (2002) research, when it comes to predicting academic performance, there would be some paths through which major ability, motivational, and personality factors may influence academic performance. In the model they proposed, task engagement (ie., commitment, effort, and attentional focus) is assumed to be a key mediating process and needs more empirical studies to prove it. Following Baron and Kenney’s recommendation(1986) and supplemented by the Sobel test (Preacher & Hayes, 2004), three criteria must be met for a variable to be considered a mediator. Previous studies about the three criteria in the mediation of our hypothesis are elaborated below. First, little is know about that whether the self-perception variable predicted grit or not. The literature only showed that perseverance was the dependent variable in studies of optimistic attribution style, self-efficacy, goal orientation, and depletion of self-control resources (see, e.g., Bandura, 1977; Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998; Seligman & Schulman, 1986). So, we assumed that the self-perception variable, which is related to self-efficacy, can predict grit. Second, self-perception may predict the academic performance because previous literature indicated that perceived self-efficacy may directly affect academic performance by enhancing efficient use of acquired skills, and indirectly, by heightening persistence, goal setting, management of work time, and flexibility in testing problem solving strategies (Schunk, 1984; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). Third, grit predicted achievement in challenging domains over and beyond measures of talent (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, and Kelly, 2007). Therefore, this study infers that grit mediates the relationship between self-enhancement and academic performance. 14.

(29) 2.4 Self-Enhancement in Cross-Cultural Contexts When it comes to comparing culture differences, some of the largest differences exist between the U.S. and Asian cultures, particularly in an Asian country like Taiwan which has a culture grounded in Confucian ideology (Hofstede, 2001). For example, confucian-based values focus strongly on respect for hierarchy, whether in work or family, preserving interpersonal harmony, and exhibiting personal modesty (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987). According to Hofstede (2001), among all countries in his study, Taiwan has the highest tendency towards collectivism and the U.S. has the highest tendency towards individualism. Similar, Chiou (2001) found that participants in Taiwan and Argentina were more vertically collectivist than those in the U.S. And, the U.S samples were more horizontally individualistic than the Taiwanese sample. Thus, it would be meaningful to conduct cross-cultural comparisons between the U.S. and Taiwan. As for how self-enhancement operates among diverse populations, this research field has not yet been extensively explored and needs further research (Chang et al., 2008; Chang & Asakawa, 2003; Chang, Asakawa, & Sanna, 2001; Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003). Just like Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama (1999) mentioned, “ The empirical literature provides scant evidence for a need for positive self-regard among Japanese…The need for positive self-regard, as it is currently conceptualized, is not universal, but rather is rooted in significant aspects of North American culture” (p. 766). Hence, the evidence of self-enhancement are absent among East Asians. Much of the literatures seems to support that for people in Asian, self-enhancing bias are absent and self-effacing biases are prominent. Some researchers have proposed that self-enhancement motivation may be weaker or absent among Asian individuals (e.g., Hamamura & Heine, 2008; Heine & Hamamura, 2007; Hiebert et al., 2003) and that their norm is 15.

(30) self-effacement instead (Bond, 1991; Markus & Kitayama, 1991b; Yik, Bond, & Paulhus, 1998). Heine and his colleagues (1999; 2007) noted that some observations of the self-effacing biases in East Asia. First, on conventional measures of self-enhancement, East Asians do not self-enhance as much as European Americans do. Second, self-enhancement-related behaviors seem to be infrequent among East Asians. Finally, East Asians are found to be self-critical. However, some researches argued that the results from conventional measures of self-enhancement should not be taken as evidence for the absence of self-enhancement in East Asian cultures (Brown, 2003; Kim et.al.,2010; Kurman, 2003). Kim and Chiu (2011b) observed that whether or not studies identified a need for positive self-regard among East Asians depended on how the phenomenon was defined and measured. Although the self-enhancement motive might be present in East Asian cultures, but that they manifest this phenomenon in ways that are related to their own cultures (e.g., Brown & Kobayashi, 2002; Kim & Chiu, 2011b; Kurman, 2001; 2003; Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003; Takata, 2003). In addition, Kim (2011) noted some normative influence on expressions of positive self-regard in East Asian Cultures. First, in East Asian contexts, acknowledging one’s weaknesses may reflect adherence to a dialectical self-presentation style rather than a lack of self-enhancement motivation. Second, modesty norm also influences the way East Asians express their positive self-views. Individuals who make self-effacing attributions are seen by others more favorably than those who make self-enhancing attributions. And, in Sedikides and his colleagues’s (2005) meta-analysis, they found that East Asians show self-enhancement on collectivist. traits/behaviors.. Third,. self-improvement. is. another. norm. that. inhibits. self-enhancement in East Asia. Self-improvement came from the parenting style (Miller, Wiley, Fung, & Chung-Hui, 1997), the widely circulated incremental theory of self (Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997), and the emphasis on self-discipline (Azuma, Kashiwagi, & Hess, 1981) in Asian 16.

(31) contexts. Forth, East Asians are more motivated by trying to avoid negative outcomes (more prevention focused) and European Americans are more motivated by trying to attain of positive outcomes (more promotion focused) (Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000). Finally, it is a crucial cultural value to maintain relational harmony in East Asian. Therefore, in the present study, the short term and long term costs of self-enhancement in Taiwanese and America adolescents will be examined. Since the measure in the present study is different from the conventional measure in the previous studies, the hypothesis would be that either in Taiwan or America, accurate self-assessors unintentionally or intentionally will perform better than self-enhances and self-effacers unintentionally or intentionally.. 2.4 Hypotheses in the present study Here are the hypotheses: Hypothesis 1-1: In Phase 1 of Study 1, participants who showed self-enhanced or self-effaced, indicated lower academic performance compared to those who assessed themselves accurately in Taiwanese adolescents. Hypothesis 1-2: In Phase 2 of Study 1, with a monetary incentive, people who self-enhanced or self-effaced unintentionally would show lower academic performance in Taiwanese adolescents. Hypothesis 1-3: In Phase 2 of Study 1, with a monetary incentive, people who self-enhanced or self-effaced intentionally would show lower academic performance in Taiwanese adolescents. Hypothesis 2-1: In study2, self-enhancers or self-effacers indicated lower academic performance compared to accurate self-assessors in Taiwanese adolescents. Hypothesis 2-2: In study2, with a monetary incentive, both self-enhanced and self-effacers 17.

(32) unintentionally would show lower mathematics achievement in Taiwanese adolescents.. Hypothesis 2-3: In study2, with a monetary incentive, both self-enhancers and self-effacers intentionally would show lower mathematics achievement in Taiwanese adolescents. Hypothesis 2-4: In study2, self-enhancers or self-effacers indicated lower academic performance compared to accurate self-assessors in American adolescents. Hypothesis 2-5: In study2, with a monetary incentive, both self-enhanced and self-effacers unintentionally would show lower mathematics achievement in American adolescents. Hypothesis 2-6: In study2, with a monetary incentive, both self-enhancers and self-effacers intentionally would show lower mathematics achievement in American adolescents. Hypothesis 3-1: In study3, when self-perception measured by adjusted residual discrepancy, either in Taiwan or America, accurate self-assessors unintentionally performs better than self-enhances and self-effacers unintentionally. Hypothesis 3-2: In study3, when self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change, either in Taiwan or America, accurate self-assessors intentionally performs better than self-enhances and self-effacers intentionally. Hypothesis 4-1: In study4, when self-perception measured by adjusted residual discrepancy, grit was a significant mediator between self-perception bias and academic performance. Hypothesis 4-2: In study4, when self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change, grit was a significant mediator between self-perception and academic performance.. 18.

(33) Chapter 3 Study 1: Short Term Costs of Self-enhancement for Academic Performance in Taiwanese Adolescents 3.1 Method The aim of Study 1 was to understand self-enhancement among Taiwanese adolescents via amended methodology which improved the errors that occurred from previous researches. A two-phase research was designed to test the hypotheses in study 1. 3.1.1 Phase 1 The purpose of Phase 1 was to test Taiwanese adolescent had the similar results as the previous hypothesis (Kim & Chiu, 2010). The hypothesis referred that the participants who showed self-enhanced or self-effaced, indicated lower academic performance compared to those who assessed themselves accurately. 3.1.1.1 Participants 214 Taiwanese students in seventh grade from a public school in Taipei participated in the study (44% female; mean age = 13.47 years, SD = .70). 3.1.1.2 Procedure The participants took 15 minutes to complete 20 math questions. Next, participants were asked to report the estimated number of questions that they had answered correctly. At the end of the semester, all students’ academic performance was collected from school records. 3.1.1.3 Measures 3.1.1.3.1 Math test (see Appendix.1) 19.

(34) A pilot study was conducted to select 20 math items for 7th grade students. All the items were from math textbook they had studied previously. The standard for selecting effective items is that item discrimination falls between .20 and 1.0, item difficulty ranged from .40 to .80, and the average items gotten right is 12. 3.1.1.3.2 Measuring self-enhancement scores (see Appendix.2) In order to examine self-enhancement versus self-effacement, residual discrepancy was established from the difference between participants’ perceived performance and actual performance. In previous research, two indexes called residual discrepancy and absolute discrepancy were used (Kim & Chiu, 2011). However, there are many disadvantages in absolute discrepancy, such as the absolute discrepancies may have poor reliability based on Cronbach & Furby(1970). Besides, direct difference scores between self-assess performance and actual performance are highly correlated with the self-assessment and the actual performance (Zuckerman & Knee, 1996). Thus, in this study, residual discrepancy was used to represent self-enhancement. The index used in Phase 1 called initial residual discrepancy. Investigators regressed perceived performance on actual performance. The higher positive residuals the participants had, the higher self-enhancement they belonged to. The less negative residuals the participants had, the lower self-effacement they belonged to. And, a residual score of zero were accurate self-assessment. 3.1.1.3.3 Dependent Variable—academic performance We recorded data for a variety of academic performance variables from school records. These variables included teacher assessments of everyday performance (50%) and three exams (50%) of all academic subjects in the Spring semester of 2011. 20.

(35) 3.2.1 Phase 2 Phase 1 was less clear about why, despite testing the relationship between self-enhancement and academic performance, the influence of motivational bias was not considered. Thus, the purpose of Phase 2 was to address the motivational bias issue by testing the hypothesis: with a monetary incentive, people who acknowledged that they self-enhanced or self-effaced would show lower academic performance. 3.2.1.1 Participants The participants in Phase 2 are the same as Phase 1. 3.2.1.2 Procedure In Phase 2, there were two steps to establish the motivation underlying the self-enhancement with a monetary incentive. First, after the procedure conducted in Phase 1, participants were asked to complete some psychological questionnaire which is not related to math test. Then, and the most importantly, participants were asked to estimate their performance again, this time with a monetary incentive. (see Appendix.3) In order to increase participants’ motivation to assess themselves accurately, the instructions mentioned that if participants’ estimation is perfectly accurate this time, they would receive $450 NTD (New Taiwan Dollar, NTD). And participants are allowed the option of looking back over the math test to decide their perceived performance. 3.2.1.3Measures 3.2.1.3.1 Math test (see Appendix.1) The math test in Phase 2 is the same as phase 1. 3.2.1.3.2 Measuring self-enhancement score 21.

(36) After self assessment with a monetary offer in Phase 2, two indexes were established from: the difference among participants’ perceived performance without incentive, participants’ perceived performance with incentive, and actual performance. These resulted in adjusted residual discrepancy and residual discrepancy-change. First of all, one index called adjusted residual discrepancy was the outcomes when comparing the difference between participants’ perceived performance with incentive and actual performance. An adjusted residual discrepancy was created by regressing perceived performance with incentive on actual performance. The higher positive residuals the participants had, the higher self-enhancement unintentionally they belonged to. The less negative residuals the participants had, the lower self-effacement unintentionally they belonged to. And, a residual score of zero were accurate self-assessment unintentionally. Second, the other index called residual discrepancy-change which comparing the difference between participants’ perceived performance with incentive and participants’ perceived performance without incentive. A residual discrepancy-change was created by regressing perceived performance with incentive on perceived performance without incentive. The higher positive residuals the participants had, the higher self-effacement intentionally they belonged to. The less negative residuals the participants had, the lower self-enhancement intentionally they belonged to. And, a residual score of zero were accurate self-assessment intentionally. 3.2.1.3.3 Dependent Variable—academic performance We recorded data for a variety of academic performance variables from school records. These variables included teacher assessments of everyday performance (50%) and three exams (50%) of all academic subjects in the Spring semester of 2011.. 22.

(37) 3.2 Result In study 1, the curvilinear regression is used to test the hypothesis whether there is a functional relationship between self-perceptions (ie., self-enhancement, self-effacement and accurate self-assessment) and academic performance. The results of two phases are presented as below. 3.2.1 Phase 1 3.2.1.1 Initial Residual Discrepancy: The quadratic effect between self-perception and academic performance The mean number of correct answers in the math test was 11.52 (SD=4.88). Men and women did not differ on their actual performance on the test, t(214) = -0.28, ns. The average perceived performance of the math test was 12.09 (SD=4.63). The polynomial regression equation was fitted to academic performance with the linear and quadratic effects of self-perception as predictors (i.e., Y  77.497  0.265X1  0.234 X 1 , where Y = Academic 2. performance, X1 is self-perception as measured by initial residual discrepancies. The maximum value of a quadratic equation is determined when X1 = 0.57. ) Table 3.2a shows results of analysis examining the relationship between self-perception and academic performance. As can be seen, when self-perception measured by initial residual discrepancies was used as the predictor (X) in step 2, the linear effect of self-perception was not significant, β = .06, t(211) = .89, ns, but the predicted quadratic effect was significant, β = - 0.20, t(211) = -2.94, p< .01, supporting Hypothesis1-1. As shown in Figure 3.2a, the shape of the relationship is consistent with the hypothesis. On the horizontal axis, self-enhancers take parts of the positive values, on the other hand, self-effacers have the negative values. The graph has proved, and as predicted, these two groups of people shows lower academic performance. 23.

(38) Participants, who resulted in scoring closer to zero, shows otherwise. Table 3.2a Summary of the relationship between initial residual discrepancies and academic performance in Study 1. R2 (ΔR2). B. β. t. 0.30. 0.07. 0.99. 0.01 (0.01). initial residual discrepancies. 0.27. 0.06. 0.89. 0.04(0.04). initial residual discrepancies--quadratic effect. -0.23. -0.20. -2.94**. Predictor. Step 1 initial residual discrepancies. Step 2. Note. N = 214. ** p < .01.. Figure 3.2a. Curvilinear relationship between initial residual discrepancies and academic performance in Study 1 24.

(39) 3.2.2 Phase 2 3.2.2.1 Adjusted Residual Discrepancy: The quadratic effect between self-perception and academic performance With monetary incentive, 50.7% of the participants didn’t change their answer. Then, t test was conducted to understand if participants’ answer became more accurate with incentive. In order to know the positive and negative difference between self-perception score and zero, we need to take the absolute value of initial and adjust discrepancy. The results showed a significant difference (t=2.38, p< .05), and the absolute value of adjust discrepancy is smaller (M = 1.84) than initial discrepancy (M = 2.14). That is, participants would self-assess more accurately with monetary incentive. The average perceived performance (with incentive) of the math test was 12.14 (SD=4.89). Similar to Phase 1, the polynomial regression equations was fitted to academic performance with the. linear. and. quadratic. effects. of. self-perception. as. predictors.. (i.e.,. Y  77.023  0.257 X 2  0.203 X 2 , where Y = Academic performance, X1 is self-perception as 2. measured by adjusted residual discrepancies. The maximum value of a quadratic equation is determined when X2 = 0.63.) Table 3.1b shows results of analyses examining the relationship between self-perception and academic performance. As can be seen, when self-perception measured by adjusted residual discrepancies was used as the predictor (X) in step 2, the linear effect of self-perception was not significant, β = .05, t(211) = .75, ns, but the predicted quadratic effect was significant, β = - 0.15, t(211) = -2.23, p< .05, supporting Hypothesis 1-2. As shown in Figure 3.2b, the shape of the relationship is consistent with the hypothesis. This quadratic effect shows similar results to the outcomes in Figure 4.1a, but less significant. 25.

(40) Table 3.2b Summary of the relationship between adjusted residual discrepancies and academic performance in Study 1. Predictor. R2 (ΔR2). B. β. t. 0.22. 0.04. 0.63. 0.00 (0.00). 0.26. 0.05. 0.75. 0.03(0.02). -0.15. -2.23*. Step 1 adjusted residual discrepancies. Step 2 adjusted residual discrepancies adjusted. residual. discrepancies--quadratic -0.20. effect Note. N = 214. * p < .05.. Figure 3.2b Curvilinear relationship between adjusted residual discrepancies and academic performance in Study 1 26.

(41) 3.2.2.2 Residual Discrepancy-Change: The linear effect between self-perception and academic performance Different from initial residual discrepancies and adjusted residual discrepancies, the polynomial regression equation was only fitted to academic performance with the linear effects of self-perception as predictors. (i.e., Y  75.772  1.367 X , where Y = Academic performance, X3 is self-perception as measured by residual discrepancy-change). Table 3.2c shows results of analyses examining the relationship between self-perception and academic performance. As can be seen, when self-perception measured by residual discrepancy-change was used as the predictor (X) in step 1, the linear effect of self-perception was significant, β = .21, t(211) = 3.16, p< .01. However, when residual discrepancy-change was used as the predictor (X) in step 2, the linear effect of self-perception was still significant, β = .20, t(211) = 2.96, p< .01, but the predicted quadratic effect was not significant, β = - 0.08, t(211) = -1.14, ns. Hypothesis1-3 was not supported. As shown in Figure 3.2c, The linear effect showed that self-effacers intentionally was related to higher academic performance, whereas self-enhancers intentionally associated with lower academic performance.. 27.

(42) Table 3.2c Summary of the relationship between residual discrepancy-change and academic performance in Study 1. t. R2 (ΔR2). 0.21. 3.16**. 0.05 (0.05). 1.35. 0.20. 2.96**. 0.05(0.01). -0.15. -0.08. -1.14. B. β. 1.43. residual discrepancy-change residual discrepancy-change --quadratic effect. Predictor. Step 1 residual discrepancy-change. Step 2. Note. N = 214. ** p < .01.. Figure 3.2c. Curvilinear relationship between residual discrepancy-change and academic performance in Study 1 28.

(43) In sum, these results indicated that for Taiwanese adolescents, accurate self-assessors, accurate self-assessors unintentionally, and self-effacers intentionally are related to the short term higher academic performance.. 29.

(44) Chapter 4 Study 2: Short Term Costs of Self-enhancement for Mathematics Achievement in Taiwanese and American Adolescents 4.1 Method The purpose of Study 2 was to understand self-enhancement for mathematics achievement in Taiwanese and American adolescents using the same method of Study 1. One hypothesis referred that self-enhancers or self-effacers indicated lower academic performance compared to accurate self-assessors. The other hypothesis referred that with a monetary incentive, both self-enhanced and self-effacers who unintentionally or intentionally would show lower mathematics achievement Accurate self-assessors unintentionally or intentionally shows otherwise. The expected results in Taiwanese and American adolescents would be similar. 4.1.1 Participants The participants for Taiwanese students are the same as Study 1. The participants for America students are 128 students of seventh grade and tenth grades from a public school participated in the study (mean age = 15.09, years, SD = .70), participants include equal numbers of males and females and the probability distribution of the participants is approximately a normal distribution. 4.1.2 Procedure The procedures in Study 2 are the same as Study 1 in Taiwan and the United States. We normalized the amount offered based on the current exchange rate and the relative per capita GDP in the United States and Taiwan, arriving at a rate of $20.00 NTD to $1.00 USD. Therefore, 30.