 |
Excerpt from: Big Theories Revisited Dennis M McInerney, University of Western Sydney Shawn Van Etten, SUNY Cortland |
ORDER ONLINE This title available for sale online. Click here for more information RELATED TITLES Effective Schools. Edited by Dennis M McInerney and Martin Dowson, University of Western Sydney, SELF Research Centre and Shawn Van Etten, SUNY Cortland Focus on Curriculum. Edited by Dennis M McInerney, University of Western Sydney and Shawn Van Etten, SUNY Cortland Research on Sociocultural Influences on Motivation and Learning - 1st Volume. Edited by Dennis M McInerney, University of Western Sydney and Shawn Van Etten, SUNY Cortland Research on Sociocultural Influences on Motivation and Learning - 2nd Volume. Edited by Dennis M McInerney, University of Western Sydney and Shawn Van Etten, SUNY Cortland Sociocultural Influences and Teacher Education Programs. Edited by Dennis M McInerney, University of Western Sydney and Shawn Van Etten, SUNY Cortland |
|
Pages 61-90. Copyright 2004 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. CHAPTER 4: MOTIVATION AS PERSONAL INVESTMENT Martin L. Maehr and Dennis M. McInerney INTRODUCTION Awareness of something like "achievement motivation" may not be "as old as dirt," but probably is nearly "as old as sin." And, interestingly enough, it was a concern with religion and its effects that figured significantly in the emergence of the contemporary scientific approach to the study of achievement motivation. In 1904 (see also 1992) renowned German sociologist Max Weber published two articles, later republished in English as a book, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber hardly spelled out a psychological theory of motivation, but he did provide a framework and a stimulus for the later work of David McClelland. The study of achievement motivation owes much to the work of McClelland and his associates (Atkinson, 1958, 1964; Atkinson & Feather, 1966; Atkinson & Raynor, 1974; McClelland, 1961; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953; McClelland, Baldwin, Bronfenbrenner, & Strodbeck, 1958). They suggested that achievement motivation was a personality trait that developed in some people more than others as a result of early socialization experiences, and the emotional concomitants of these experiences. As socialization practices were presumed to vary across cultures, McClelland's conceptualization provided a "ready-made" theoretical basis for the examination of achievement motivation in a range of groups, societies, and cultures. As a result, McClelland's work gave impetus to many research programs investigating a range of issues related to achievement motivation in cross-cultural settings. Specifically, early cross-cultural studies inspired by McClelland typically examined the antecedent - consequent variables associated with the development of achievement motivation among diverse social and cultural groups. Some of these studies were particularly concerned with relationships between achievement motivation and such variables as racial and cultural identity, self-esteem, and academic achievement. Other studies were concerned with the sociocultural antecedents of achievement motivation, including independence training, social class, and acculturative stress. McClelland suggested that achievement behavior was comprised of four distinct but related elements. These were competition with a standard of excellence, affective concern for goal attainment, an evaluation of performance, and some standard for the attainment of a long-term goal. These elements were typically identified in the projective responses to selected TAT cards. In general, this approach categorized individuals as high or low in achievement motivation, and determined those situations that would maximize their performance. McClelland's work, culminating in a massive cross-cultural study on the nature, origins, as well as economic and societal importance of achievement motivation, has framed many of the basic questions of importance even today. THE INTRODUCTION OF DECISION THEORY Building on McClelland's description of the highly achievement-motivated person as an entrepreneur, a "moderate" risk-taker, J. W. Atkinson (1964) adapted features of then-current decision theory to model achievement behavior. This work was important for many reasons. First of all, it introduced, or reintroduced, cognitive constructs as major motivational causes. Probability or expectancy of success (Ps) and failure (Pf) came close to making sense of self a major causal construct, a formulation that was later reformulated in terms of causal attributions (Weiner, 1986a, 1986b), furthering the change of focus to social cognitions as a cause of achievement behavior. The examination of the role of attributions not only implicated the self, but as attributional patterns varied for women, minorities, and cultural groups (e.g., Maehr & Nicholls, 1980; Nicholls, 1978, 1980), there emerged questions about the different definitions that individuals might have vis-a-vis situations that might first change how their attributions would lead to task investment-or the role that self, especially sense of competence, might play. Specifically, individuals defined situations differently in ways that made their feelings about self more or less important. Atkinson's work was developed further by Wigfield, Tonks, and Eccles as expectancy value theory (see Chapter 8, this volume). Today, as "goal theory" has emerged as perhaps the dominant conception of achievement, perhaps human motivation more broadly (cf. Pintrich & Schunk, 2002), the interplay of self and purpose have been focal in motivation research. Within its cultural context, McClelland and Atkinson's conceptualization was (and, to some extent, still is) quite an adequate interpretation of what constitutes achievement motivation. However, few early studies based on McClelland and Atkinson's conceptualization questioned the basic premises of this conceptualization in terms of its cross-cultural validity. In contrast, most studies assumed that the conceptualization, its premises, and its associated methodologies were essentially culturally transferable. Thus, when measures of differences between cultural groups on achievement and achievement motivation constructs were apparent, it was assumed that these reflected significant differences between groups on the constructs themselves, rather than reflecting the applicability (appropriateness and salience) of the constructs across cultural groups. The non-Western cultural groups examined often performed poorly with respect to the given constructs. The conclusion drawn from such research was that "poor" performance either reflected:
Since this early research a significant amount of evidence has accumulated that indicates sociocultural sources, and modes of expression, of achievement and achievement motivation are not culturally invariant, but related to, and embedded in, cultural contexts as illustrated by Moeller and Kramer (1995), Salili and Hoosain (2002), and Villani (1999). In particular, the emphasis placed on individual achievement and success in McClelland's theory is now extensively questioned. In contrast, it is now argued that achievement must be analyzed in its total cultural context, including the various roles, both economic and noneconomic, through which achievement motivation may be directed. A wide range of studies in many different cultural settings supports this view. A common theme identified in these studies is that socialization patterns identified as important to developing achievement motivation in Western contexts (e.g., independence and self-reliance) are clearly not manifest (or, at least, not manifest in the same ways or for the same reasons) in other non-Western cultural contexts. From this research researchers were able to extract both common and differentiating features and then compare cultures on the basis of these features. The overriding insight, however, might be that it is well to look first at achievement behavior, where it occurs, when, and how. Behavior, like choices made, persistence in these choices: where, when and how do individuals invest their personal resources of time, talent, and effort? The framework above acted (and still acts) as a useful starting point for investigating achievement and achievement motivation across cultures. However, this framework needed to be supported by more detailed conceptualizations of achievement and motivation. In response to this need, many theoretical models, which attempted to define such conceptualizations more explicitly, emerged. Attributional and Cognitive Style Models Attributional and cognitive style models of achievement motivation stimulated considerable interest into the workings of motivation in educational settings as well as much cross-cultural and cross-ethnic research directed at comparing attributional styles among varying ethnic groups. Some studies were content with transporting the unmodified theoretical constructs to foreign parts in an attempt to assess the attributional style of non-Western groups over a range of concerns such as responsibility, morality and achievement-other research sought to establish the cross-cultural generalizability of theoretical principles through comparative research. Attribution theory, in general, hypothesizes that achievement motivation is influenced by causal attributions, that is, that attributions play a central role as cognitive mediators of achievement behavior (see Weiner, Chapter 2, this volume). According to early attribution theory (Weiner, 1972), the individual is more or less likely to engage in or withdraw from particular behavior, depending on the attributions the individual makes for success or failure. Each attribution has a concomitant affective reaction that influences the probability of further achievement behavior. According to attribution theory, it is important that individuals attribute the success or failure of previous performance to causes that will positively motivate future performance, and not to ones that will discourage further involvement. It was found through a number of early research programs with American groups (Dweck & Repucci, 1973; Kukla, 1972: Weiner, 1972; Weiner & Kukla, 1970) that people high in achievement motivation generally attribute their successes to ability and effort (internal causes) and failure to lack of effort or external factors, while those low in achievement motivation generally attribute their successes to external causes and exclude effort and ability attributions, and hence experience less pride for their successful performance. These people also attribute their failures to lack of ability rather than to external factors or lack of effort (Bar-Tal, 1978). Weiner (1972) suggested that the major differences between individuals high and low in achievement needs are that individuals in the high motive group are more likely to initiate achievement activities, work with greater intensity, persist longer in the face of failure, and choose more tasks of intermediate difficulty, than persons low in achievement needs (Weiner, 1972). Among factors that were found to influence achievement motivation and attributions are sex differences, ethnic differences, achievement needs, self-esteem, emotional state, reinforcement schedules, and internal-external control perceptions (Bar-Tal, 1978). For attributional research to derive valid cross-cultural conclusions, two issues needed to be considered. First, there was a need to understand the concepts of success and failure and achievement from differing cultural perspectives, and second, there was a need to investigate the kinds of causal explanations or cognitive systems that members from different cultural backgrounds employ in their attributions of success, failure and achievement. While a large number of studies suggested the cross-cultural relevance of attributional and cognitive style models of research (Faustman & Mathews, 1980; Fry & Ghosh, 1980; Munro, 1979; Nicholls, 1978), many of these studies made the assumption that the instruments used (e.g., "Man in a Frame" box and TAT materials) in fact measure social motives that are relevant culturally to the groups studied. Concepts such as internality-externality and field dependence and independence may have been quite appropriate to guide research within a given cultural context, but little work took place to assess the universal relevance of the dimensions. Without this consideration, research was simply showing that groups differ on the degree to which they reflect specific research constructs. Much early attributional work was also based on the assumption that dimensions such as internality and field independence are more culturally adaptive than externality and field dependence (Rupp & Nowicki, 1978). The belief, for example, that internal-external orientation is a universal continuum linked to academic performance had to be tested in a range of cultures radically different from the achievement-oriented Americans and Europeans. The relatively well-established link between locus-of-control orientation and academic achievement in Western cultures may not stand up under close enquiry in a range of other societies. Early work by Duda (1980) looked closely at the attributional theory of achievement motivation from a cross-cultural perspective. Her conclusions questioned the cross-cultural generalizability of Weiner's position. Duda suggested that the bipolar nature of the causal dimensions used in attributional theory may be inappropriate with groups such as the Navajo and believed that a continuous rather than a dichotomous dimension would better capture such an orientation. Attribution theory was also founded on several epistemological assumptions about the way people think and perceive their world that Duda challenged. She presented some compelling evidence against the cross-cultural generalizability of these assumptions by considering Navajo beliefs that relate to the attributional concepts of time and causality, orientation to space, linearity of cause and effect, and reality orientation of the world, demonstrating that modes of thinking and perspectives of causality are culturally determined. Maehr and Nicholls (1980) addressed the problem of developing an attributional model that might form a more adequate basis for future cross-cultural research into achievement motivation. These authors presented two models for consideration. The first model sets out to analyze achievement motivation in terms of the subjective meaning of behavior and achievement for a group or the persons who compose that group, that is, it is concerned with the phenomenology of achievement. This phenomenological approach to defining achievement behavior cross-culturally required that the researcher elicit definitions of achievement behavior from people of different cultures rather than imposing inappropriate definitions on their behavior. It also required an analysis of the attributions for achievement. In Western society, research indicated that achievement and success and failure are best thought of as psychological reactions to outcomes, not as objective outcomes, and that the attributions, which produce greatest feelings of pleasure or regret, are ability and effort (Weiner, 1972). More generally, attributions that enable a person to demonstrate to self or others that one possesses desirable qualities are considered important motivators. Research concerned with examining the antecedents of success and failure across cultures (Duda, 1980; Osgood, Miron, & May, 1975; Salili, Maehr, & Gillmore, 1975; Triandis, 1973) suggested that ability and effort attributions are not necessarily salient to all groups. Maehr and Nicholls (1980) suggested that attribution theory, in its emphasis on ability and effort as the most important causes of perceived success and failure, may be a culture-specific theory. However, it would appear that the general principle of finding out the attributions salient to each group in eliciting feelings of success or failure are important for the cross-cultural researcher. Unfortunately, Maehr and Nicholls did not give any suggestions how this approach, which might be termed emic, may be carried out. In a second model for research, Maehr and Nicholls refined the attributional model to make it more cross-culturally applicable and attempted to develop a model that would enable the researcher to seek similar behavior in diverse cultures even if such behavior may vary in frequency and in importance across cultures. These authors presented three theoretical definitions of achievement motivation, which emphasized the importance of goals and definitions of self in relationship to such goals, and which were essentially etic in nature while allowing for cross-cultural comparison. The actual content for each dimension was assumed to be emic and is elicited separately from each specific group using culturally relevant techniques. These three positions were:
Etic-Emic Model An important theoretical development, which had significant implications for methodological improvements in cross-cultural research on achievement motivation, was presented by Davidson, Jaccard, Triandis, Morales, and Diaz-Guerrero (1976). These authors suggested an etic-emic model where an individual's behavior is considered a function of his or her intention to perform that behavior and the "habits" of the individual to perform that behavior, that is, the frequency with which the individual has performed the act in the past. An individual's behavioral intention in turn is a function of his or her affect toward performing the act (Aact), his or her beliefs about the consequences of performing that behavior and the evaluation of those consequences (PC)(VC), and the perceived appropriateness of a particular behavior for the subject's specific reference groups (NB) and persons holding similar positions to those held by the subject in the social structure (RB). These last two elements refer to the norms and roles appropriate to a particular group. The subject's personal normative beliefs about what he or she should or ought to do with regard to the behavior of interest (personal norms, PNB) also affect the behavioral intention. The relative importance of Aact, PCVC, NB + RB, and PNB as determinants of behavioral intentions is expected to vary as a function of the type of behavior under consideration and the individual differences (including cultural differences) of the respondents. According to this framework, cultural differences are operationalized not as mean level differences between cultural groups on some dependent measure, but as differences in the within-culture relationship of two or more variables to some dependent variable. That is, cultural differences are implied from different patterns of correlation (Davidson et al., 1976). According to Malpass (1977), application of this model in different cultural settings requires the following steps:
The major test of this model concerns the degree to which Aact, PCVC, NB + RB, and PNB predict intention to engage in particular behaviors. Davidson and colleagues' 1976 study of fertility-relevant behaviors of a sample of U.S. and Mexican women provides support for this model of behavioral intentions. This model provided a valuable framework for examining achievement and other behavior in cross-cultural contexts. The crucial step was the development of explicit procedures for developing local contents that could be applied in different cultural settings with comparable theoretical meaning (cf. Malpass, 1977). Davidson (1979) refered to such an approach as the cultural similarities approach, where the researcher looks past content differences in beliefs in an attempt to identify cross-cultural similarities in either belief and attitude structure, or in the processes whereby beliefs combine to form attitudes. He stated that this approach has important advantages in that first, only the functional equivalence of measures is required, and second, cultural differences can often be meaningfully interpreted because they tend to appear as a differences in one relationship in the presence of cultural similarities in other relationships. As Davidson states (quoting Malpass, 1977):
Ecological Model At about the same time as personal investment theory was being developed, Berry (1979, 1980) attempted to redress the balance in cross-cultural research between laboratory-based programs and research set in naturalistic environments by proposing an ecological model for cross-cultural studies. This model (or, at least, its general approach; see, e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1986a, 1986b) continues to be relevant for contemporary cross-cultural studies as represented by Johnson (1994), Neuman and Celano (2001), and Strohschneider and Guss (1998). Berry suggested that research that is largely based on experiment, with little consideration of the wide range of variables operating in natural environments, holds little value. In order to make the task of effective naturalistic research easier, Berry proposed a multilevel model. This model describes research that moves from a naturalistic-holistic level to a controlled-reductionist level through (a) four environmental contexts-ecological, experiential, performance, and experimental, and (b) four effects-achievements, behaviors, responses, and scores. The ecological context (also referred to as the natural-cultural habitat) refers to all the relatively permanent characteristics that provide a context for human action. The experiential context is the pattern of recurrent experiences that provide a basis for learning. The performance context is the limited set of environmental circumstances immediate in space and time that may be observed to account for particular behaviors. The experimental context represents those environmental characteristics that are designed by the psychologist to elicit a particular response or test score. The experiential and performance contexts are always nested within the ecological context, while the experimental context may, or may not, be contained within the first three contexts. Berry suggests that the degree to which the experimental context is nested within the other three contexts represents the ecological validity of the experimental task. Four effects parallel the four contexts described above: achievements, behaviors, responses, and scores. Achievements refer to the complex, longstanding behavior patterns that develop as an adaptive response to the ecological context, and include established and shared patterns of behavior that can be found either in an individual or distributed in a cultural group. Behaviors are those acts that have been learned over time in the experiential context, and include the skills, traits, and attitudes that have been acquired in particular roles, or fostered by specific training or education. Responses, on the other hand, are those "fleeting" performances that occur in response to immediate stimulation or experience. Finally, scores comprise those behaviors that are observed, measured, and recorded during a psychological experiment or testing. Berry (1979, 1980) argues that between each of the four environmental contexts and effects exists a relationship that should be considered in any effective cross-cultural research. Some attempt was made by Berry (Berry & Annis, 1974) to use this model to examine acculturative stress in three American Indian groups in relationship to ecology, culture, and differentiation. The full scope of the model is not illustrated in this study, although the authors do demonstrate an integration between the ecological and experimental levels. Dasen (1977) presented a study designed to verify Berry's ecological model within a Piagetian framework. In a cross-cultural study of three cultural groups (Central Eskimos, Australian Aborigines, and Ebrie Africans), Dasen found support for the model, stating that "(n)ot only do these data support the model, they also indicate that relationship between ecology and culture is positive at both ends of the ecological scale, in different areas of operational development." While Berry's model is a very thorough attempt to set up a framework that will maximize the data coming to researchers in the cross-cultural arena, the scope of the dimensions he refers to are more than likely to deter even the keenest of researchers, with the likely result that studies would encompass at least two of the dimensions considered important by Berry, but few that would generate data across the four contexts cited. The complexity of the model therefore limited its usefulness to researchers. While the complexity of Berry's model may have limited its usefulness to some researchers, the general ecological approach has proved very useful in recent research by Conner (1998), Johnson (1994), and Ogbu and Simons (1998) investigating motivation, achievement, and related constructs. Specifically, such research has arguably produced data with acceptable ecological validity, and has specified a range of experiential, performance, and experimental variables that are associated with motivation and achievement across a range of "natural" habitats. Goal Theory Goal theory developed by Ames, Dweck, Nicholls, Pintrich, and Midgley provides a model that enables researchers to identify similar motives in diverse cultures, even if such behavior may vary in frequency and in importance across cultures. Goal theory emphasizes the importance of goals, and definitions of self in relationship to such goals. Goal theory differs from attribution theory in that attribution theory explores perceived reasons for success or failure while trying to succeed, whereas goal theory explores perceived reasons for trying to succeed in the first place. These reasons for trying to succeed are labeled "goals" in the context of goal theory. Some important goals (or goal "orientations") postulated by goal theory are:
While these and a number of other theoretical perspectives influenced research on achievement motivation during the 1970s and 1980s, our major focus in this chapter is on personal investment theory. We now wish to briefly describe the theory and then present past and recent research that demonstrates its value as a means of understanding motivation in cross-cultural and socioculturally diverse settings. A Brief Overview of Personal Investment Theory Maehr and Braskamp's (1986) original Personal Investment model of achievement motivation built upon and integrated various dimensions from earlier conceptualizations of the nature of motivation described above. Personal investment (PI) theory, as its name implies, stressed that the study of motivation must begin and end with the study of behavior, specifying very carefully the behavior that gave rise to motivational inferences. Personal investment theory is, therefore, concerned with how persons choose to invest their energy, talent, and time in particular activities. PI theory is particularly relevant in investigations into how individuals of varying social and cultural backgrounds relate to differing achievement situations. This is because it does not assume that people from a given culture or group will invest effort in the same achievement situations or, if they do, for the same reasons, as those from other cultures and groups. PI theory also emphasizes the role played by social and cultural contexts in determining motivational patterns in performing achievement tasks. Moreover, it is phenomenologically based, and emphasizes the subjective meaning of situations in light of individuals' culturally determined belief systems such as beliefs about self, perceptions of appropriate goals, and perceived alternatives available for pursuing these goals. PI theory is a social-cognitive theory, as it assumes that the primary antecedents of choice, persistence, and variations in activity levels are thoughts, perceptions, and beliefs that are embedded in cultural and social beliefs about self and situation. Specifically, PI theory designates three basic components of meaning as critical to determining personal investment in specific situations:
PI theory predated goal theory but incorporates within its framework three elements that were to become increasingly the major focus of motivational research in educational settings, namely, mastery (task) goals, ego (performance) goals, and social goals. However, while much goal theory research over the last 20 years has concentrated on comparing and contrasting the effects on behavior of mastery and performance with a much more recent and somewhat belated attempt to broaden goals to include social goals, PI was not only a multiple, goal-oriented theory from its inception, but also included sense of self and action possibility dimensions that made it, potentially, a far richer and more sensitive source of information on the motivational determinants of behavior. This was particularly the case in socioculturally diverse settings. Effectively, PI is far more complex than goal theory, but life and motivated behavior is complex and should not be reduced to simple dimensions. The essential elements of the personal investment theory perspective were spelled out in an early cross-cultural study of achievement motivation (Fyans, Salili, Maehr, & Desai, 1983). The research reported emerged out of the work on meaning systems and subjective culture conducted by Charles Osgood and his research group (cf. Osgood et al., 1975). Indeed, it was specifically based on a massive amount of cross-cultural data gathered with the "semantic differential" method developed and extensively employed by Osgood and his colleagues. A secondary analysis of these data was conducted to address two basic issues. The first issue was whether one could identify a meaning system, a "factor," that reflected "achievement motivation" similarly across the varied cultural groupings contained in the Osgood and colleagues data set. Such a factor, or "meaning system," was indeed identified. Fyans and colleagues (1983) found support for a cross-cultural factor of achievement very similar to the concept of achievement developed by McClelland. The achievement motivation factor appeared to be relevant regardless of culture. The cross-cultural factor of achievement that was isolated could be described as decidedly masculine in orientation, with the concepts of father and masculinity loading high on the vector. Notably, the factor was associated with concepts that at least in the United States connote an achievement orientation, concepts such as worker, work, and freedom. The concept of knowledge and courage also figured strongly in this cross-cultural factor, and it was found that achievement was conceptually linked to pragmatic end products such as success and power. The authors suggested that an arguably valid cross-cultural standard of achievement meaning was determined, and cultures scoring high and low in this regard could be identified. A second phase of the research examined the issue of how groups rated high or low on this cross-cultural factor compared on a series of criterial concepts related to this factor; in other words, to determine how the meaning of achievement was differentially constructed within the highest and lowest groups. Among the significant findings were that high-scoring cultures on the cross-cultural achievement factor tend to see success associated with self, initiative, freedom, education, work, and masculinity, while the low-scoring cultures associate success with femininity, devotion, and the past. There was an emphasis on the future in high-scoring cultures and an emphasis on the past in low-scoring cultures. Overall, low-scoring cultures tended to view education as a means of confirming old ways rather than ushering in new, with concepts such as competition and champion tied negatively in such cultures. In high-scoring cultures concepts such as competition and champion were connected with achievement. With regard to the criterial concept of self as cause, Fyans and colleagues (1983) found that whereas in high-scoring cultures self seems to be tied to achievement, in low-scoring cultures it is tied to family, cooperation, and love. Fyans and colleagues went on to say that "high-scoring cultures appear to stress achievement, and low-scoring cultures affiliation, a point quite in accord with McClelland's (1961) suggestion in The Achieving Society" (p. 1008). These authors suggested that although a universal factor seemed to be identified, this factor did not seem to have equal relevance for all cultural groups, and that striving for success was likely to take different forms in different cultures. While those who scored high on the cross-cultural factor appeared to view success in terms of demonstrating independent competence, it was found that those who scored low appeared to stress retaining social ties and enhancing interpersonal relationships as the means to success. The findings of the Fyans and colleagues (1983) study were, then, interesting in a number of respects. The study was initially conducted to consider the cross-cultural variability of motivation. Importantly, however, the results reflected not only variability but also similarity in the construction of achievement and possibly achievement motivation across widely diverse cultural groups. A thorough examination of cross-cultural interpretations of the meaning of achievement indicated in these data suggested a near-universal and widely shared view of achievement and possibly a substantially universal view of achievement motivation. However, instead of attributing this to one specific "need," the results in this study suggested that they may be best attributable to three sociocognitive systems: the self, first of all, some incentive or possibly purposive system and perhaps also a too-seldom-ignored presence of what might be called "normative options" for choosing, acting, thinking, and feeling. Arguably, these earlier data can be interpreted in accord with current social-cognitive perspectives on motivation, on the one hand. On the other hand, they may also be considered as suggesting that instead of limiting the study of motivation to purpose and self, we need also to consider the perceived "choice options" that individuals acquire and act in terms of as members of a cultural community. CURRENT CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH While this early work established an empirical as well as conceptual basis for personal investment theory, current efforts have been particularly useful not only in expanding the samples studied but therewith also enhancing the empirical and conceptual basis for the theory. A number of research groups have figured prominently in current work. Extending the Empirical Base: Enriching the Theory Probably the largest program of research utilizing the full PI model has been conducted by McInerney and his colleagues, who have not only tested the full model utilizing the Inventory of School Motivation (ISM) and the Facilitating Conditions Questionnaire (FCQ) but, in particular, extended the application of personal investment theory to a variety of cultural groups. The results and conclusions of these studies are multifaceted. First, and foremost, considerable empirical evidence has been amassed to support the dimensions of the Personal Investment model (see, e.g., McInerney, 1990, 1991, 2000; McInerney, Hinkley, Dowson, & Van Etten, 1998; McInerney, Roche, McInerney, & Marsh, 1997; McInerney & Sinclair, 1991; McInerney, Yeung, & McInerney, 2001; Watkins, McInerney, & Boholst, 2003; Watkins et al., 2002; Watkins, McInerney, & Lee, 2002), which suggests that the range of goal orientations (task, performance, social, and extrinsic), sense of self values (sense of purpose for the future, self-esteem, and self-reliance), and facilitating conditions for action, appear broadly valid and reliable across very diverse sociocultural and cultural groups. The scales based on PI seem to have equivalent statistical validity and reliability across many diverse groups, reveal very few significant differences between groups, and predict in similar ways achievement outcomes across groups. For example, rather than the expected polarities between Anglo, European, Asian, Aboriginal, Middle Eastern, African, and Native American groups on key dimensions such as competition, affiliation, social concern, power, and extrinsic rewards, all groups are very similar in means and standard deviations across the range of scales analyzed across multiple studies. Even where there are significant differences, these are a matter of degree rather than kind, of little practical significance, and often run counter to cultural stereotypes. For example, much of the data indicates that while all groups are relatively low on competitiveness and social power, Anglo groups are relatively lower than others such as Navajo Indians and Australian Aboriginals who are stereotypically presumed to be less competitive and social power seeking than Anglos (see, e.g., McInerney, 2003; McInerney et al., 1997). The research indicates that, by and large, diverse groups endorse the same educational goals and values as each other. So, for example, mastery goals such as task and effort are strongly endorsed irrespective of the group, while performance goals such as competition and social power are not endorsed. Extrinsic rewards such as token and praise are moderately endorsed. Sense of purpose and self-reliance are also strongly endorsed across all groups. In multiple regression analyses using scales from the ISM and FCQ, equivalent levels of variance in achievement outcomes such as academic marks and school attendance are explained across widely diverse groups, and key predictors are consistent across all groups. Furthermore, goals and values that are stereotypically used to distinguish between Western and other cultural groups (such as competition, affiliation, social concern, and social power) do not appear to be salient in the school contexts studied. In other words, they don't, in general, predict academic outcomes, and this finding is generalizable across groups. Factors that have been considered important by many as key determinants of indigenous minority student's poor achievement and dropping out of school, such as the supposed mismatch between the school's goals and values and the student's goals and values are, in general, not supported by findings from a range of studies. What clearly emerge as important predictors of student academic achievement across all groups are:
Accompanying the psychometric research is a series of large-scale qualitative interviews also based on PI (McInerney, McInerney, Ardington, & DeRachewiltz, 1997; McInerney, McInerney, Bazeley, & Ardington, 1998). These interviews reveal the complex forces that operate in molding school motivation and in particular focus on the perceived options available to students and how these options moderate motivation in school settings. In particular, the interviews reveal the dilemmas and shifting value orientations that occur as children from a variety of cultural groups attempt, on the one hand, to preserve cultural traditions, while on the other seek to modernize through education in which alternative and sometimes competing values are seen to have a place. Clearly emerging from the qualitative interviews is the importance of mastery goals and social concern, and to a lesser extent, affiliation, recognition, and praise, across all groups. In contrast, emerging from the interviews is the relative unimportance (and negative valuing) of competition, social power, rewards, and tokens, again across all groups. Parental and community support for education and learning is consistently mentioned as important, as are the norms and role beliefs held by the students. Students argue that in order to feel motivated it is important for them to believe that it is "appropriate" for them to be successful at school; that they like and value school; and that they have access to models of successful schooling (either students, parents, or community members who do well at school and influence the student) (McInerney et al., 1997, 1998). According to the students themselves, students who espouse these norms and role beliefs, and have access to successful models, are more likely to be successful at school. The Inventory of School Motivation (ISM) dimensions utilized in the quantitative studies discussed earlier were also critically evaluated by the interviewees for cultural relevance and perceived importance in predicting school motivation and success. All dimensions of the ISM were considered culturally relevant. Dimensions that were considered most important to determining students' level of motivation were task (intrinsic motivation) and sense of purpose. These qualitative results support the results of the psychometric studies. Personal Investment and Learning Strategies A recent review of classroom and laboratory studies (Covington, 2000) concluded that there was adequate empirical support for the theoretical propositions that mastery goals are associated with deeper, meaning-oriented learning strategies, whereas performance goals tend to be associated with superficial, rote-level processing. Covington (2000) warned, however, that the bulk of the research he reviewed is based on mainstream American students and there is little evidence that the theory and these findings can be generalized to other cultural groups. In an extension of the McInerney research, Watkins and colleagues (Watkins, McInerney, & Lee, 2002; Watkins et al., 2002) not only tested using factor analysis the validity of the Inventory of School Motivation (based on translation for a Chinese sample), but also set out to examine the construct validity of the dimensions by finding out if they correlated as predicted with independent measures of Intellectual Self-Esteem and Surface, Deep, and Achieving Learning Strategies (Biggs, 1987; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983). In particular, they tested the hypotheses that Intellectual Self-Esteem (10 items measuring the intellectual self from the Chinese Adolescent Self-Esteem Scale; Cheng & Watkins, 2000) would correlate highly with the ISM Self-Reliance and Self-Esteem scales; that the mastery oriented scales would correlate significantly and positively with the Leaning Process Questionnaire Deep and Achieving Strategy scales, but negatively, if anything, with the Surface Strategy scale; and that performance-oriented scales, including Extrinsic Motivation, would be the only ISM scales to correlate significantly positively with the Surface Strategy scale. Deep Learning Strategies are concerned with the intention to understand by means of interrelating ideas, reading widely, and thinking independently and critically. Surface Learning Strategies, on the other hand, tend to be associated with fear of failure and an external locus of control, and a context characterized by boredom or fear, and assessment methods such as multiple-choice items, perceived as rewarding low-quality learning. The third commonly found strategy is Achieving, where students tend to work hard and be well organized and use whatever specific strategy they feel will maximize their chances of high marks, be it gaining mastery of what is to be learned or, in extreme cases, cheating. Adoption of this strategy is thought to be dependent on both the students' need for success and their perception of the assessment task. As expected, the mastery-oriented scales correlated most highly with the Deep and Achieving Strategy scales, although performance- and social-oriented scales also correlated positively with the Deep and Achieving scales, but not so strongly. The mastery-oriented scales also correlated negatively and significantly with the Surface Strategy scale. Only the extrinsic motivation scale correlated positively (p < .01) with the Surface Strategy scale, indicating that those engaging in surface strategies were more likely to say they value extrinsic rewards for their study. All other significant correlations with Surface Strategy were negative, although it is interesting to note that, in general, performance-oriented scales were unrelated to Surface Strategies. The three Sense of Self scales (Self-Reliance, Self-Esteem, and Sense of Purpose) all correlated as predicted, quite highly and positively with the Deep and Achieving Strategy scales. Self-Reliance and Self-Esteem were also negatively and significantly correlated with the Surface Strategy scale. The mastery-oriented scales were most strongly positively related to Intellectual Self, although the performance- and social-oriented scales were also positively related to Intellectual Self. However, the two strongest correlations were, as expected, with Self-Reliance and Self-Esteem. Sense of Purpose was also positively related to Intellectual Self. In summary, this study demonstrated the usefulness of the Inventory of School Motivation and the Personal Investment model on which it is based for drawing a motivational profile on Chinese-speaking students in Hong Kong, and for examining the relationship of this profile to learning strategies. It provided some limited support for the contention that mastery but not performance goals would be related to Deep Learning Strategies, as mastery-oriented goals were most strongly correlated with Deep Strategies. While the mastery-oriented scales were clearly negatively related to Surface Strategies, which supports the researchers' hypothesis, there was, rather than a positive relationship, no relationship between the performance-oriented scales and Surface Strategies (except for Extrinsic Motivation, discussed above). This study was further extended to a range of other cultural groups including students from Malawi, Nepal, South Africa (black and white samples), and Zambia, as well as Hong Kong (Watkins et al., 2002). Initial factor-analytic studies with these groups supported the validity of the Inventory of School Motivation for use with these very diverse groups. The reliability estimates on each scale were also very similar across the groups, and in general quite high, although there was some variability across groups, with the Nepalese group recording lower reliabilities across most scales including the Learning Process Questionnaire scales. While initially this might suggest that either there was a language difficulty (the ISM was administered in Nepalese) or that the ISM was less valid than for the other groups, the overall evidence is that on 12 of the 17 scales utilized in the study the reliability estimates for the Nepalese were very similar to the other groups. It is interesting to note that the scales that seemed to be least reliable for the Nepalese group were those dealing with more collectivist values such as affiliation and social concern. The reliability for Self-Reliance was also low for this group. The reasons for these low reliabilities need to be further investigated. In order to examine the relationship of the ISM scales to Deep, Surface, and Achieving Learning Strategies, a series of multiple regressions were conducted with the scales of the LPQ as dependent variables and the scales of the ISM as predictor variables. Across all samples the combination of ISM scales were able to predict Deep, Achieving, and Surface Strategies quite well, although least well for the Surface Strategy scale. Mastery-oriented scales, Sense of Purpose, and Self-Reliance were consistently strong predictors for Deep and Achieving Strategies across most samples. Indeed, most of the other scales contributed little to the variance explained. The results for the Surface Strategy are not as clear cut, with performance-oriented motivation, extrinsic motivation, Self-Reliance, and Self-Esteem providing the highest beta weights across most samples. While the authors had expected that a Deep approach to learning might be triggered by motivation impetus based not only on mastery but also on a mix of intense personal ambition, family face, peer support, and/or material reward for various groups in the study, the scales significantly related to Deep, Achieving, and Surface strategies were remarkably similar across groups. Considering the diversity of the samples utilized in the study, it does seem that motivational variables relate in similar ways to the learning strategies students adopt in a range of cultures. The results of this study are consistent with previous Western research showing that Mastery goals tend to be associated with deeper, better-organized learning strategies. While there is some evidence that performance-oriented goals are associated with Surface Learning, the evidence is not as strong. Given the fact that the Surface Strategy scale had a lower reliability than either the Deep or Achieving Strategies across all groups, the lack of definitive results regarding the relationship of the motivational scales to Surface Learning might reflect the inadequacy of the Surface Strategy scale as an outcome measure. "ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE" AND PERSONAL INVESTMENT While McInerney and his colleagues took the lead in the continued development of PI theory in the examination of cultures across various societal groups, Maehr and others (e.g., Maehr & Braskamp, 1986; Maehr & Midgley, 1991, 1996) pursued a different tack: the study of "organizational culture." Arguably, the formulation proved useful in this enterprise as well. Conceptualizing Organizational Culture Following a trend of the time, the concept of "culture" was applied to organizations: places of work as well as schools (e.g., Maehr & Braskamp, 1986). Not surprisingly, the general Personal Investment framework was increasingly applied to the study of "organizational culture" in general and school culture in particular (e.g., Maehr & Midgley, 1991, 1996) during this period. Especially important in this regard was that this eventuated in a serious and systematic consideration of whether there was an "optimum culture" for personal development. Most, if not all, of this concern with an "optimal culture" for personal development focused on schools and there the specific issue was whether a school that stressed Mastery goals was preferable to a school or classroom that stressed Performance goals so far as the degree and quality of personal investment was concerned. Especially of interest in this context is the issue of goals and certain presumed "culturally different" and possibly therewith "disadvantaged" groups. Much of the argument in this regard revolved around the question of how Task/Mastery and Performance goals were more or less facilitative in meeting the goals of learning. The underlying argument in this regard related to how cultures or learning environments that stressed Performance goals were likely to make one's self salient. Related to the literature on self-awareness there was some basis for arguing that self-awareness was a "two-edged sword." While "self-awareness" might not be debilitating, even be facilitative, if one felt positively about oneself vis-a-vis performance of the achievement task at hand, it could be-was likely to be-problematic if the individual was ambivalent about her abilities or acceptance within the group. Several lines of research seemed to underline this potential. First, there was an established literature on self-awareness that indicated the varying role that such awareness might play in behavior. Related to this was a literature on social stigma, including especially the work of Steele (e.g., Steele & Aronson, 1995), particularly as it dealt with members of an ethnic or cultural minority for which there existed harsh stereotypes vis-a-vis achievement in a given domain, such as education. Arguably, the research prompted in part by PI theory may be of relevance yet today. Particularly so, as the focus of much of the work on "goal theory" has tended to follow an individual difference paradigm and paid only small and occasional attention to the social and interpersonal context of achievement. But it might be most especially relevant as it refers very specifically to the fact that one of the critical facets of motivation is the perceived options from which the individual must choose in acting. Motivation theory today focuses exclusively on Purpose and Self, important antecedents of motivation, to be sure. But there is also the fact that individuals always act in terms of viable and culturally allowable options. This was emphasized in the work of Triandis (e.g., 1973, 1977, 1980a, 1980b, 1995, 2001) and embodied in his theory of "subjective culture." It may also be viewed as embedded in the work of Markus and Kitayama (e.g., 1991a, 1991b, 1994). Arguably, however, it is no more salient than when expressed as a major factor in a choice and decision theory of motivation: When a person acts, invests in a particular activity, decides to do "this" rather than "that" with more or less enthusiasm and involvement-the basis of the decision is the set of options perceived and deemed acceptable. Indeed, such perceptions of options may well be at the heart of cross-cultural differences in motivation and achievement-just as much at the heart as self and purpose. A COMPLEX PERSPECTIVE: IS IT JUSTIFIED, USEFUL, AND PRACTICAL? In general, social-cognitive theories of motivation (in particular, personal investment theory) have alerted researchers to the ways in which motivation and achievement may be differentially constructed across cultural (and other) contexts. However, a significant remaining question from this perspective is: Is there a single motivational environment that can be constructed in most applied settings (e.g., schools, hospitals, businesses, government organizations), especially when these settings are typically diverse in many ways with respect to individuals' age, sex, cultural backgrounds, and social economic status? This is an important question because a range of different motivational environments cannot be easily generated in most applied settings. Theory and research, including much cited above, has gone a considerable distance in demonstrating that mastery goals are preferable to ability performance goals. This is because mastery goals focus an individual's attention on the task(s) to be completed, rather than on the individual's perceived ability (or otherwise) to complete the task(s). Psychologically, this appears to "free" individuals to perform at optimal levels, even in the face of difficulties. Indeed, it might also be that performance goals are dysfunctional in many applied settings, although not in all cases (cf. Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). More recently, social goals have also been shown to have adaptive effects on an individual's engagement in a variety of achievement and social situations (e.g., Dowson & McInerney, 1997, 2001; Urdan & Maehr, 1995; Wentzel, 1991a, 1991b). These social goals may be particularly relevant in non-Western cultural settings where the social dimensions of motivation and achievement may be more salient than in Western settings. Finally, two questions can be asked about personal investment and the research it has generated. First, does a multiple goal, sense of self, and facilitating conditions perspective add anything to our understanding of student motivation and achievement, and second, does cultural background make a difference? Clearly, a complex model such as Personal Investment does add considerable depth to our understanding of student motivation in school settings. Using such an approach enables us to see the relative importance of a complex set of motivational goals to students, and how they interact with sense of self and the action possibilities available to students in their real-life settings. All of the variables considered in the research reported in this chapter help explain, to varying degrees, variance in academic outcomes. It is more than likely that in noneducational settings, such as sporting, social, and familial settings, the relative salience of the variables may vary, and this is worth studying. The consistency in the salience of mastery-oriented motivation and sense-of-self variables, as well as the importance of future perspective and parents to students' engagement in schooling across widely divergent cultural groups, provides evidence that these factors may be universal (etic) in their salience. On the other hand, the different patterning of significant predictors across cultural groupings provides culturally specific (emic) information with which to explore the unique motivational characteristics of particular groups. These patterns of predictors across cultural groupings in which there is both consistency (perhaps universality) and variability give the researcher much rich information with which to explore the emics and etics of student motivation in school settings. This would not be possible unless a complex perspective was taken. In other words, the nature of the outcome measured is differentially related to the range of variables considered and this varies across cultures. While evidence suggests few mean differences between groups on many of the dimensions, it appears that culture does matter when these dimensions are used to predict outcomes. The possibilities for understanding motivation uncovered in these analyses would not have been possible if only mastery and performance goals, for example, had been considered. A REAFFIRMATION OF PERSONAL INVESTMENT THEORY And so we close with the suggestion that we may have lost something very important by limiting our focus in the study of motivation to the self. It is of course well that we study this as well as purpose-if we are to understand personal investment in our culture or in any other culture. Personal investment theory and research made a start here. It is well that motivation researchers endeavor to redeem that start and make "perceived options" as well as self and purpose focal elements of their work on culture and motivation. REFERENCES Click here for complete references for this chapter. (PDF) | ||
