You are on page 1of 35

Topic Individuals In

4 School
By the end of this topic, you should be able to:

1. Identify motivation elements that shape behaviour of individuals in


2. Explain hierarchy of needs and its relationship with individuals

satisfaction, achievement and autonomy;

3. Describe the concept of beliefs and its relationship with attribution

theory (ability, fairness, outcomes, capabilities and self-efficacy);

4. Explain the concept of goal-setting theory;

5. Identify intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors; and

6. Describe the relationship between leadership, self-efficacy and its

outcome and practical implications.

To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something
else is the greatest accomplishment

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 1882)

In this age of advancement and modernity, it is best to be yourself rather than

trying to fit in with what other individuals want you to be. You are what you
think you are, you plan the ways and you get what you want. Above all, it is
your motivation that drives you to achieve your targets. Indeed, you are

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


motivated by your needs, beliefs and goals. Thus, this chapter explains these
three components of motivation that shape individuals in school.

1. What keeps the motivation of a teacher high in teaching in school?
Identify two factors to be discussed.

2. Identify two factors that hinder students to perform in their


Every individual has different needs to be fulfilled. For example, a father might
be concerned with his childrens health care and education and a child might be
concerned with food, a house to live in and affection from his parents.
Definitely, a teacher in school also will have his concerns in terms of teaching
aids, learning materials, salary, the job itself and promotion opportunities in
school. Obviously, every individual will act differently according to their needs
and wants.

4.1.1 Hierarchy of Needs

Abraham Maslow was a psychologist who pioneered human motivation and the
theory of human needs and his hierarchy of needs has become a popular theory
of motivation in management and organisational behaviour. His theory
highlighted five basic factors of human needs which could be arranged in a
hierarchical order of a pyramid.

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


Figure 4.1: Maslows Hierarchy of Needs


As shown in Figure 4.1, there are five basic interrelated categories of needs
according to Maslows hierarchical model:

(a) Level 1 psychological need

Basic human biological needs such as sleep, hunger, taste, touch and so on.

(b) Level 2 safety and security

Individual needs of protection, freedom, stability, limits, laws and so on.

(c) Level 3 belonging, love and social activities

Individual needs of affection, satisfaction over society, work and self
belonging to community, friendships and so on.

(d) Level 4 esteem

Individual needs such as pride, respect and appreciation, achievement,
competence, status, dignity and so on.

(e) Level 5 self-actualisation

The highest order of human needs which indicates what individuals want
to be, life goals to achieve, personalities to shape and so on.

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


Basically, people will move up to the next level of the hierarchy when the lower-
level needs have been met (Hoy & Miskel, 2013; Fugar, 2012; Sufian Burhan,
Mohammad, Kurniawan & Sidek, 2014). In order to move from Level 1 to Level 2
in the hierarchy, the Level 1 satisfaction must be achieved. In other words, the
individual must fulfil the needs at Level 1 before he can move up to Level 2.

Similarly, once the needs at Level 2 have been satisfied, then the individual needs
will move up to Level 3 and so on. The successive emergence of higher order
needs will be restrained when the lower-level needs are not completely satisfied.
If an individual still has not fulfilled his needs at a given level for any period of
time, those needs will become potent motivators (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

Many people assume that individuals must fulfil their needs at a level, before
their needs could move up to the next level. However, Maslow pointed out that
most of the time normal individuals are only partially satisfied in all the basic
needs (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). The percentage of satisfaction decreases as the need
of an individual moves up to the next level of hierarchy of prepotency.

In addition, Maslow asserts that the first three levels are regularly satisfied and
do not have much motivational effects compared to satisfaction of self-esteem
and self-actualisation that are rarely achieved. Generally, the higher level needs
will continually motivate individuals to achieve their higher goals.

In fact, Maslows hierarchical needs theory is applicable in any educational

organisation. Generally, administrators, teachers, students and staff do have a
need for safety and security in school. For example, individuals in school will
not be able to concentrate on their work or task if they have to work in a
dangerous building. Besides that, teachers and staff also will definitely look for a
secure job, no discrimination, a fair timetable, and a handsome income in school.

On the other hand, students also will look for fair treatment from school staff and
teachers, no bullying from other students as well as no discrimination or double
standard treatment from their teachers and school. In terms of relationship, both
teachers and students are also looking for a harmonious relationship. However,
not all the teachers or students will attempt to achieve self-esteem and
actualisation in school.

Needs and Worker Satisfaction

Frederick Herzberg and his colleagues have developed a theory of motivation
and job satisfaction based on their studies with 200 Pittsburgh engineers and
accountants (Hoy & Miskel, 2013; Fugar, 2007). Their studies identified a
consistent pattern of work. They uncovered that dissatisfaction was associated
with factors such as company policy, supervision, salary, peer and subordinate

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


relationship, personal life and working condition, which have been collectively
regarded as hygiene or extrinsic factors (Fugar, 2007; Hoy & Miskel, 2013). They
also uncovered other factors that have motivated workers and enhanced their job
satisfaction which they regarded as motivation.

They acknowledged that achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility and

advancement are motivators among workers (Fugar, 2007; Hoy & Miskel, 2013).
The presence of hygiene factors in poor conditions will lead to job dissatisfaction.
However, maintaining hygiene factors at an optimal level does not necessarily
increase job satisfaction (Chyung, 2011). However, motivational factors do
influence job satisfaction (Chyung, 2011). Based on these findings, Herzberg and
his colleagues built the motivation-hygiene theory, sometimes recognised as the
dual-factor theory or the two-factor theory.

Herzberg argues that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are two different entities
that operate at a dual parallel continuum, rather than being opposing on a single
continuum of satisfaction (Fugar, 2007; Chyung, 2005). Herzberg further verifies
that the opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction, but rather no job
satisfaction; and similarly, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job
satisfaction, but no dissatisfaction. Briefly, Herzberg motivation-hygiene theory
postulated the following conclusions (Hoy & Miskel, 2013):

(a) There are two different factors to determine work satisfaction and

(b) Motivation factors tend to produce satisfaction, and hygiene factors tend to
produce dissatisfaction; and

(c) Work satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not opposite, but rather are dually
distinct and separable dimensions.

To summarise, school administrators should be aware of these two factors when

they are designing teaching and learning tasks to suit teachers and students.

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


Table 4.1: Herzbergs Theory of Motivation-hygiene

Motivators Hygienes

Achievement Policy and Administration

Recognition Supervision
Work itself Job security and salary
Responsibility Interpersonal relations
Advancement Working conditions
Personal life

Satisfaction Dissatisfaction

Source: Hoy & Miskel (2013); Fugar (2007)

Needs for Achievement: An Acquired Need

Achievement motivation theory was developed from David C. McClellands
studies. This need achievement or n-achievement theory commonly addresses
the need to accomplish difficult tasks, to overcome problems and obstruction,
and to excel in all the attempts undertaken by an individual (Hoy & Miskel,
2013). A person, who strives for excellence for the sake of achievement, not by
other rewards, is assumed to have a higher need for achievement (Hoy & Miskel,
2013). McClellands theory asserts that when motives are learned, the needs
become arranged in a hierarchy of potential for influencing behaviour, and vary
from one person to another (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

Achievement is placed at the top of the motive hierarchy which plays the most
important role to motivate an individual. Hence, McClelland (19171998) as cited
by Hoy and Miskel (2013) argues that individuals who pose high achievement
motivation normally also demonstrated:

(a) Strong desire to assume personal responsibility for performing tasks or

solving a problem, like to work alone and tend to choose competent co-

(b) Set moderately difficult goals and intermediate levels of risk; and

(c) Strong desire to obtain performance feedback.

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


Moreover, a person with high achievement motivation is also a person with

single-minded absorption in task accomplishment. Obviously, students, teachers
and administrators who exhibit single-mindedness are often more successful
than their counterparts (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

Needs for Autonomy

Autonomy is defined as the degree in which the job gives freedom, independence
and discretion to the individual to perform the tasks (Hackman and Oldman,
1975; Colquitt, Lepine & Wesson, 2013) Normally, employees are given chances
to make decisions in their jobs (Breaugh, 1985). The more people feel autonomy,
the more they feel that ownership is present and commitment will increase
(Mowdays et al., 1982). Hoy and Miskel (2013) mentioned that people seek to
take charge of their own behaviour. However, people often resist and struggle
against external pressures such as rules, regulations, orders and deadlines
imposed by others because it disturbs their need for autonomy.

Individual autonomy can be developed by activities and programmes that set

realistic and personally planned goals, accepting personal responsibility for
actions and developing self-confidence (Woolfolk, 2004, 2010 in Hoy & Miskel,
2013). In fact, the needs for autonomy and self-determination can be further
enhanced through the following initiatives:

Figure 4.2: Initiatives to enhance the needs for autonomy and self-determination

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


1. Explain how the Maslows hierarchical need theory can be used to
motivate students to study hard and be successful.

2. Identify key factors that motivate a teacher to put in extra effort in

his job.

Beliefs are defined as general understandings or generalisations of surrounding
individuals (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). In fact, Hoy and Miskel (2013) also stated that
beliefs are about causality, fairness, intelligence, the consequences of an action
and ability to control ones own destiny that have influences on individual
behaviour. These beliefs motivate an individual to act accordingly because
behaviour of an individual is driven by his own beliefs.


If you are given a chance to change a school to be a better place to study,

what area(s) that you think should be changed? Explain.

4.2.1 Beliefs about Causality: Attribution Theory

We always ask why when things do not happen in the way that we want. We
make inferences or attributions about the causes. For example, when we ask
why do teachers always come late to school? We may think of some causes
such as Is it due to traffic jams? or Is it a habit of that particular teacher
himself? Bernard Weiner (2000) created a model of motivation using attribution.

In fact, attribution theory deals with causal explanations where individuals make
inferences about their past behaviours, especially when dealing with
achievement efforts and expectancies (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). Weiner (2000) has
also suggested that individuals can often use this attribution theory to better
manage themselves and their environments once they have created their
explanation of causes for failures or achievements.

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


Dimensions of Causality
Weiner identifies three dimensions of causality that have attributed to the causes
of success and failure. Hoy and Miskel (2013) state that the three dimensions of
causality are (see Figure 4.3):

Figure 4.3: Three dimensions of causality

Source: Hoy & Miskel (2013)

Now, let us look at each explanation of the three dimensions:

(a) Locus (internal versus external): Refers to location of the cause. For
example, the ability and effort are the most frequent internal factors, while
task difficulty and luck are often the external factors of outcomes

(b) Stability (stable versus variable): Regards causes as constant or varying

over time. For instance, the ability is stable as the individuals aptitude
toward task is relatively fixed, whereas effort is variable as it changes from
one situation to another.

(c) Responsibility (controllable versus uncontrollable): Refers to personal

responsibility in terms of control of the cause. Effort is controllable as we
ourselves determine how hard we try; however, ability and luck are out of
our control.

The three dimensions of causality have important implications for motivation as

they are able to create emotional reactions to success and failure (Hoy & Miskel,
2013). If success or failure is attributed to internal factors, success typically will
create pride and failure will diminish self-esteem. Stability dimensions are
related to emotions that implicate future expectations (Weiner, 2000; Hoy &
Miskel, 2013). For example, causes of failure (unfair teachers) create hopelessness,
apathy and resignation. The responsibility dimension is related to a set of social
emotions that include guilt, shame, pity and anger (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). We feel

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


guilty when the causes of personal failure are due to factors under control, such
as lack of effort, deciding not to take responsibility and so on.

On the other hand, we are proud when we succeed even though we lack ability.
Figure 4.4 sketches two attribution paths of failure. Path 1, if the failure is caused
by lack of effort, it is considered controllable and one later feels responsible and
guilty which eventually engages ones behaviour to improve performance. Path 2
posits, if failure is caused by lack of ability, it is seen beyond individual control,
hence the individual does not feel to be obliged towards the failure. However,
the embarrassment from the failure may trigger a person into avoidance
behaviour and cause the decline of performance (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

Figure 4.4: Weiners Attribution Theory Explaining Failure

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


Attribution theory has been criticised because it looks like a common sense
theory including ways of thinking about social world and does not represent
scientific knowledge. However, Hoy and Miskel (2013) found that the attribution
theory can be broken down into a series of questions:

(a) Causal Question: What are the causes of outcome? Effort? Ability? Luck?
Difficulty? Help? Bias?;

(b) Locus Question: Is the cause internal or external of the individual?;

(c) Stability Question: Are causes stable or variable? Is the cause fixed as effort
or ability?; and

(d) Controllability Question: Can I control causes? Can I control my effort? My

ability? The difficulty of the task? Help? Ratings? Bias?

Students, teachers and administrators will become highly motivated when they
know the causes of the outcomes, and are able to identify which causes are
internal (locus), amenable to change (variable) or under control (controllable).
Hence, attribution theory can be used as a tool to predict performance at the
workplace (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

4.2.2 Belief about Ability

In fact, adults have two different views about their ability namely stable view
and incremental view (Hoy & Miskel, 2013):

(a) Stable view of ability assumes ability as a stable and uncontrollable trait
that cannot be changed.

(b) Incremental view of ability assumes ability as an unstable but controllable

trait an expanding reservoir of knowledge and skills.

Individuals with a stable view of intelligence tend to set higher performance

goals (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). Generally, they seek situations where they can look
good and are able to secure their self-esteem. They prefer to make small efforts or
risk nothing but serve well in their own areas of expertise. Working hard but still
facing failure suggests low ability and confident devastation among these
individuals, and this is what and why these individuals with a stable view of
intelligence try to avoid (Hoy & Miskel, p. 153, Bandura, 1993).

Generally, young children hold almost an exclusive incremental view of ability.

When they grow older, they gain knowledge and improve their ability through
hard work, study, persistence and practice (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). This explains

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


why most of the students in the lower grade will become smarter and improve
their learning ability when they move to upper grades.

Individuals with incremental view of intelligence tend to set realistic yet

challenging learning goals and seek situations where they can learn and progress
(Hoy & Miskel, 2013). For them, errors are regarded as a natural part of the
acquisition process (Bandura, 1993). They believe that room for improvement
serves as a ladder to increase their ability. These people are not threatened by
failure, and they do not view failure as devastating but suggest more work to be
done to improve their performance (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

4.2.3 Beliefs about Fairness: Equity Theory and

Organisational Justice
No one likes to be treated unfairly at the workplace or at school. In fact,
everybody wants to be treated justly and fairly under whatever circumstances. In
order to obtain a better understanding of the beliefs about fairness, it is good to
review equity theory and organisational justice.

Equity Theory
Equity theory concerns perceived fairness individuals beliefs about whether
they are being treated fairly or not (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). This theory is explained
through procedural justice, where the perceived fairness of the procedures is
used to allocate resources (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005 in Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

Indeed, the question here is how do we know if we are not being treated fairly?
Hence, the equity theory suggests social comparison - to know whether or not we
have received fair treatment as we compare ourselves with others. Technically,
we compare our ratio of inputs (everything we contribute contributions) to
outputs (everything we receive rewards) to the input/output ratio of others
(Hofmans, 2012). If the ratios differ, inequity occurs which may cause a conflict in
the organisation (Hofmans, 2012).

Particularly, we compare others who are similar to us in various ways. For

instance, young teachers compare themselves with older teachers. They perform
the same role but, of course, the older teachers have seniority advantage.
However, the inequity (unfairness) is seen to be greater if we compare teachers
who are at the same age and length of service in school. To reduce this tension,
some rationalisation of differences might be needed to convince the more senior
teachers (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


The equity theory formulates that if our ratios of input/output are about the
same to whom we compare, apparently we receive a fair treatment. Instead, if
our ratios are not equal, then we might not be treated fairly and a sense of
inequity will develop (Hofmans, 2012,; Hoy & Miskel, 2013). Hence, employers of
any organisation should try to avoid inequity as it will lower individuals
motivation at work and produce low work performance. Definitely, a feeling of
inequity will affect work motivation, and individuals will resort to increase their
own benefits, resign or reduce their inputs by giving less effort on the job (Baron,
1998 in Hoy & Miskel, 2013). Hence, Hoy and Miskel (2013) highlighted three
issues to be noted regarding this equity theory, which are:

(a) Individual judgments about fairness are subjective in nature;

(b) Individuals are more sensitive to receiving less than they deserve rather
than receive more; and

(c) Equity and justice are important motivating forces to many individuals.

Figure 4.5 depicts the Equity theory:

Figure 4.5: Equity theory

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


Thus, in school, teachers, administrators and students who perceive fair

treatment will have increased motivation followed by increased performance.
Therefore, it is important to emphasise fairness in the schools standard operating
procedure (SOP).

Organisational Justice
Organisational justice is the perception of fairness from the members in an
organisation. It has two different types (see Figure 4.6):

Figure 4.6: Organisational justice

Source: Hoy & Miskel (2013)

The principal in the school can create a school atmosphere that is fair and just by
applying 10 principles of organisational justice. In fact, organisation justice in
school is determined by good administrative behaviour such as being equitable,
sensitive, respectful, consistent, free of self-interest, honest and ethical. Besides
that, voice, egalitarianism and representativeness are crucial in any attempt to
empower teachers.

For example, if teachers are interested to make decisions on school policy that
affect their teaching in the classroom (voice), they must be willing to put the
school interest above their own (egalitarianism) and must feel that their views are
being authentically represented in the process of deciding (representativeness)
the school policy. Principals in school also must have good sense and confidence
to reverse and correct poor decisions as they get feedback and more current
information (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). Table 4.2 summarises the 10 principles of
organisational justice.

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


Table 4.2 Principles of Organisational Justice

Principles of Organisational Justice

Equity Principle Rewards should be proportional to contributions
Perception Principle Individual perceptions of fairness define justice
The Voice Principle Participation in decision enhances fairness
Interpersonal Justice Principle Dignified and respectful treatment promotes fairness
Consistency Principle Consistently fair behaviour promotes a sense of justice
Egalitarian Principle Self-interest should be subordinated to the good of the
Correction Principle Faulty decisions should be quickly corrected
Accuracy Principle Decisions should be anchored in accurate information
The Representative Principle Decisions must represent those concerned
Ethical Principle Prevailing moral and ethical standards should be

Source: Hoy & Miskel (2013)

4.2.4 Beliefs about Outcomes: Expectancy Theory

Hoy and Miskel (2013) regard expectancy theory as the most reliable and valid
explanation to explain work motivation among workers. Expectancy theory
represents individuals views in the organisation. It has two fundamental
statements. First, the individuals behaviour is a reflection of individuals
thinking, reason and anticipation of future events (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).
Motivation is a conscious and cognitive process that drives people to choose
behaviour based on expected value of outcomes. Second, individual values and
attitudes will interact with environment components to create behaviour.

Hence, expectancy theory is built on these assumptions with three fundamental

concepts expectancy, instrumentality and valence. Expectancy is the extent to
which a person believes that hard work will lead to improved performance (Hoy
& Miskel, 2013). Instrumentality perceives that good performance will be realised
and rewarded (Hoy & Miskel, 2013), and valence has been defined as the
perceived value or attractiveness of reward.

Behaviour of individuals is determined when they have high expectancy, high

instrumentality and high valence. The strength of motivation is a function of the
interaction of the expectancy, instrumentality and valence. This interaction

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


suggests that motivation is weakened if any of the three elements is near to zero
(Hoy & Miskel, 2013). Figure 4.7 depicts the expectancy theory.

Figure 4.7: Expectancy theory

Scholars found that the motivation in expectancy theory is positively related to

job satisfaction, effort and performance in a variety of settings including schools.
This theory serves as a reasonably valid model of the causes of work behaviour
in the following ways (Pinder, 1984 in Hoy & Miskel, 2013):

(a) Expectancy theory is an excellent job performance predictor;

(b) Expectancy theory predicts performance but not as well as it predicts

satisfaction; and

(c) Expectancy theory demonstrates that people work hard when they think
that working hard will lead to desirable outcomes.

4.2.5 Beliefs about Capabilities: Self-efficacy Theory

Self-efficacy beliefs are critical components in most of the modern human
motivation theories (Mohamadi, Asadzadeh, Ahadi & Jomehri, 2011). Bandura
(1986) defines self efficacy as a persons judgment about his or her capability to
produce designated levels of performance. It refers to individual capability in
performing tasks. Self-efficacy contributes to motivation by individual goals,
effort spent, preseverence in facing difficulties and resilience to failure (Bandura,
1993; Wood and Bandura, 1989).

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


The more an individual believes in his capabilities, the more persistent his effort
will be. People normally accept the tasks that they think they are able to do (Hoy
& Miskel, 2013). In fact, high self-efficacy contributes to willingness to take
responsibility of task assigned and it has influence on achievement outcomes.

Development of Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy expectation is developed from many sources such as performance
feedback, past history and social influence (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). To date, there
are four primary sources that have been identified to form self-efficacy. Figure
4.8 depicts the primary sources for self-efficacy development (Bandura, 1986,
1993; Wood and Bandura, 1989, Mohamadi et al., 2011):

Figure 4.8: The primary sources for self-efficacy development

Source: Bandura (1986, 1993); Wood and Bandura (1989); Mohamadi et al. (2011)

(a) Mastery experience is defined by performance successes and failures that

contribute to the expectations that future performance would likely be
proficient. Recurrent successes elevate efficacy perceptions, whereas
regular failures create self-doubt and reduces self-efficacy.

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


(b) Modelling and vicarious experience is about self-perceptions of efficacy

through knowledge and social comparisons. In short, observing an expert
teacher in teaching may help teachers to learn effective strategies and
enhance self-efficacy.

(c) Verbal persuasion is referred to social persuasion where individuals

involved are capable of accomplishing the tasks. Even though social
persuasion has its limitation to create lasting self-efficacy, it can contribute
to successful performance if the heightened appraisal is within the realistic

(d) Physiological and affective states make people believe in their capabilities.
Definitely positive arousal such as excitement, enthusiasm, and getting
psyched can effectively alter ones beliefs about his capability.

Generally, self-efficacy has been identified as positively related to student

achievement (Bandura, 1993), student motivation (Anderson, Greene & Loewen,
1988), teachers adoption of innovations, and predicted behaviour. Hence, self-
efficacy is considered as a crucial motivational factor that affects behaviour and
work performance of teachers and students in school (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

Self-efficacy for Teachers

The meaning of teacher efficacy has created considerable debates and confusion
among scholars and researchers. Rotter (1966) defined teacher efficacy as the
extent that a teacher can control the reinforcement of his actions (in Hoy &
Miskel, 2013). Definitely, teachers who believe they can influence students
performances and motivation will be able to manage their classroom better.
Hence, Bandura (1977) stated that teacher efficacy is a kind of self-efficacy as the
outcome of a cognitive process in which people believe about their capability to
perform the task better.

A Model of Perceived Efficacy for Teaching

Tschannen-Moran, Hoy and Hoy (1998) have developed an integrated model of
teacher efficacy. They defined teacher efficacy as the belief in his or her
capability to organise and execute courses of action required to successfully
accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context. (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).
Hoy, Hoy and Tschannen-Moran (1998) used the four primary sources of self-
efficacy to interpret efficacy for teaching.

Self efficacy is different from self-esteem and locus of control, because it is

specific to a particular task (Mohamadi et al., 2011). Teacher efficacy is context-
specific and it is not equally efficacious in all teaching situations. Thus, in order

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


to determine the level of teacher efficacy, a consideration on teaching task and its
context are required (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

Teaching task and its context are two elements essential in analysing a teachers
self efficacy. Teachers capability such as skills, knowledge, strategy or personal
traits against personal weaknesses (liability) have to be determined to analyse
self-perceptions of teaching competence (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). Interaction
between teaching task and its context and self-perceptions of teaching
competence leads to judgment about self-efficacy for teaching task at hand (see
Figure 4.9). Hence, Mohamadi et al. (2011) further assert that it is crucial to
strengthen teachers beliefs of educability of all students to enhance their self-

Figure 4.9: Teachers efficacy model

Teacher efficacy is effective by its cyclical nature (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). As shown
in Figure 4.5, the proficiency of a performance creates a new mastery experience
that provides new information (feedback) that will be processed to shape the
future efficacy beliefs. Increased efficacy induces increased effort and persistent
effort leads to improved performance, which in return leads to increased efficacy.

Likewise, it is the same with decreased efficacy. Decreased efficacy leads to

decrease in effort and performance that results in poor performance, which will
lead to decreased efficacy. It is important to keep high levels of teachers efficacy
in order to help students overcome academic problems and promote high levels
of success (Mohamadi, 2011).

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


Teacher efficacy model has its theoretical and practical implications. Self-
perception about teaching competence and beliefs about task requirements in a
particular teaching situation contribute to teacher efficacy and to the
consequences that stem from efficacy beliefs (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). Once efficacy
has been stabilised, beliefs about task and teaching; and assessment of personal
teaching competence are likely to remain unchanged unless, compelling
evidence interferes and causes them to be revaluated (Bandura, 1977). Hence,
Mohamadi et al. (2011) suggest that mastery experience, vicarious experience and
verbal persuasion are effective factors that strengthen teachers self-efficacy

What are the elements for the assessment of teachers self
efficacy in school?

Goal is an aim that individuals want to achieve. In life, we set certain realistic
goals to satisfy our needs. Goals motivate us to achieve our plan in certain ways.
Goals always come from within a person even though it is constructed from
contextual information. Schools have a set of mission and vision to achieve its
goals. Teachers employ goals in their teaching and learning process. Teachers are
also motivated by schools and personal goals. Besides that, students also set
certain goals in learning, for example, to get straight As in the public
examination. Overall, goals are defined through two dimensions (Locke &
Latham, 2002), which are:

(a) Goal content the object or aim that is being sought and varies from specific
to abstract. Example of specific goals: to get an A in Mathematics or to gain
weight of 2kg by the end of November. Example of abstract goal: I can do
it. It differs between individuals in terms of specificity, duration (short or
long term), difficulty (easy or hard) and number (few or many) (Hoy &
Miskel, 2013).

(b) Goal Intensity Commitment to the goals. It depends on how individuals

see the importance of goals, how to reach them as well as the setbacks and
obstacles of achieving them. In fact, commitment influences and regulates
goal striving and important goals are most likely to be accepted (Hoy &
Miskel, 2013).

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)



Compare your school performance in two consequtive years. What

conclusion can you make? Is your school performance better than last
year? If yes, then explain why.

4.3.1 Goal-setting theory

Goal-setting theory is rather like a case study that triggers the search for
explanation and significance of a theory (Hoy & Miskel, 2013). Locke and Latham
(1990) suggest that successful goal performance must meet four conditions
(Figure 4.10):

Figure 4.10: Four conditions that must be met to achieve successful goal performance
Source: Locke & Latham (1990)

Locke and Latham (1990) also stated that when all the four criteria in Figure 4.10
are met, goal-setting is always an effective way of increasing motivation and
performance. The intention to achieve goals is mainly a motivating force for
behaviour as it governs both mental and physical actions of individuals. How do
goals affect the behaviour of the individual? Locke and Latham (2002) have listed
out four considerations. Firstly, goals help individuals focus on tasks. Goals will
increase individuals attention on the related activities.

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


Secondly, individuals will specify actions on goal-relevant activities and move

away from goal-irrelevant activities Thus, goals increase the expended effort and
energising functions. Thirdly, goals keep the individuals on track and prevents
withdrawal action. Lastly, individual's motivation and performance will increase
as they become more aware of plans to achieve the goals. Hence, the goals will
lead to specific task strategies (Locke & Latham, 2002; Hoy & Miskel, 2013), and
promote positive behaviour of individuals (Locke & Latham, 2002; Hoy &
Miskel, 2013).

Every individual needs feedback to review the progress in relation to the

achievement of the goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). The feedback received will
help individuals to improve their strategies prior to goal achievement. In brief,
three generalisations can be made from the goal-setting theory (Hoy & Miskel,

(a) Difficult goals, if accepted, resulted in higher levels of performance than

easy ones. Difficult goals require instillation of more effort and persistence;

(b) Specific goals produce higher levels of performance than the abstract goals.
It helps individuals in effective performance; and

(c) Involves issues of sources of goals, commitment and performance. Goals

can be set in three ways: (i) Individuals choose their own goals; (ii) Goals
can be set jointly; or (iii) Others can assign them. Motivational effects of
assigned goals or jointly set goals are powerful in producing high goal
commitment and high performance. However, self-set goals are
inconsistent in bringing commitment or performance in the organisation.

People seem to embrace the goals if they are realistic, reasonably difficult and
meaningful. To summarise, goal-setting theory suggests that specific, challenging
and attainable goals can increase motivation, because such goals also increase
focus, effort and persistence as well as the development of specific strategies to
achieve the goals. Furthermore, feedback towards goal attainment reinforces
attention, effort and persistence and provides information to refine and alter the
strategy to make it more effective. Overall, Figure 4.11 simplifies the integration of
the motivation theories.

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


Figure 4.11: Goal-setting theory

Why do you think an individuals beliefs plays a pivotal role in
motivating a person? Discuss.


Motivation is generally defined as an internal state that stimulates, directs and
maintains specific behaviour. However, some scholars argue that motivation is
related to personal and internal state of needs such as interests, curiosity and
enjoyment (which we name as intrinsic motivation). Others argue that
motivation is associated with external and environment factors such as
incentives, rewards, pressure, punishment and others (which we name as
extrinsic motivation) (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

Among them, Pinder (1984) defined work motivation as a set of energetic forces
that originate within and beyond an individuals being, to initiate work-related
behaviour, and to determine its form, direction, intensity and duration. On that
note, school administrators are urged to develop highly motivated teachers in
school (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

In brief, intrinsic motivation is the natural desire to seek and challenge ourselves
as we pursue our personal interest and exercise our capabilities. However,
extrinsic motivation is a behavioural view of motivation triggered by
punishments and rewards. We are not interested in the activities for its sake, but
rather for what the activities will bring to us (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


4.4.1 Summary of How Needs, Beliefs and Goals

Motivate Individuals
The following presents a summary of how these needs, beliefs and goals
motivate individuals in an organisation:

(a) Needs Theory

Suggests that people word hard when:

(i) Lower-order needs (physiological, safety and belonging needs) are

met; and

(ii) Higher-order needs (esteem and self-actualisation needs) present the


(b) Motivation-hygiene Theory

(i) Unmet lower-order needs lead to dissatisfaction of the job (hygiene

factors); and

(ii) Gratified higher-order needs lead to job satisfaction (motivation


(c) Goal-setting Theory

Proposes that individuals work hard when:

(i) They have realistic, specific and challenging goals;

(ii) They are committed to the goals; and

(iii) They receive feedback about progress toward the goals.

(d) Attribution Theory

Proposes that individuals word hard when they believe that causes for
success are:

(i) Internal due to ability and effort;

(ii) Not fixed effort that varies from one situation to another situation;

(iii) Controllable causes being controlled by using proper strategy.

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


(e) Equity Theory

Proposes that individuals work hard when they perceive fair treatment

(i) They have been given the rewards they deserve;

(ii) The rewards have been allocated fairly; and

(iii) They have been treated with respect and courtesy.

(f) Expectancy Theory

Proposes that individuals work hard when:

(i) They believe extra effort will serve better performance;

(ii) Good performance will be noticed and rewarded; and

(iii) The rewards are valued.

(g) Self-efficacy Theory

Proposes that individuals work hard when:

(i) They believe individuals have the capabilities to succeed;

(ii) They believe that the task is not too difficult;

(iii) They have succeeded in completing tasks; and

(iv) They have good models of success.


Identify any two intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors that you
think might have motivated teachers to be excellent in the teaching

Figure 4.12 presents a simplified model of work motivation based on the

different models of motivational theory. The simplified model shows that various
needs and beliefs will affect the achievement of goals, which will contribute to
the performance outcomes, and the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of an individual
at the workplace.

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


Figure 4.12: A simplified model of work motivation


In social cognitive theory, self-efficacy influences the initiation, intensity and
persistence of an individuals behaviour (Paglis, 2010). A person with higher self-
efficacy is keen for more challenging tasks, exerts more effort to complete the
tasks and is more tenacious in his effort as he encounters obstacles (Bandura,
1977, 1986, 1997). Nowadays, the rapid changing environment calls for a higher
self-efficacy and leadership among the leaders in the school organisation. Hence,
the leaders of any educational institutions need to assess their leadership
behaviour and to quest for factors that influence their self-efficacy judgment.

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)



An effective principal is expected to be able to motivate teachers and staff

to achieve higher goals in school. Identify a principals leadership style
and discuss how his leadership style will determine the transformation
changes that he will bring to the school.

4.5.1 LSE: Construct Definition and Measurement

There are three definitions related to the relationship between leadership and
self-efficacy behaviour of an individual in the organisation:

(a) Cherrington (1989) defined leadership as the incremental influence that

causes the other person to change his behaviour voluntarily.

(b) Yukl (1998) defined leadership as the use of power and influence to control
the activities of the followers toward goal achievement.

(c) Colquitt et al. (2013) insist that acts of control of a leader could influence
followers interpretation of events; the organisation of their work activities;
their commitment to key goals; their relationship with other members; and
their access to cooperation and support from other work units.

Generally, leadership behaviour is a kind of behaviour where the leader actually

acts upon a group (Lunenburg and Ornstein, 2008; Cherrington, 1989).

Many themes drawn from different leadership definitions have caused difficulty
for researchers to adopt a uniform definition and find a corresponding measure
of LSE (Leadership Self-Efficacy). Most researchers have provided a general
definition of LSE that refers to leaders judgment of his ability to effectively carry
out the leadership role (Paglis, 2010). They define this behaviour of LSE as the
leaderships confidence in planning, setting direction, delegating task,
communicating message, motivating staff, analysing problem, employing
effective judgment, taking initiative, mobilising followers and making decisions
(Paglis, 2010). Briefly, the leadership concept consists of some common themes
group influence, voluntary follower, goals achievement and leaders

Paglis and Green (2002) stated that, in certain cases, the leadership behaviour of
LSE is seemed very similar to traditional management functions such as
planning, coordinating and motivating. In fact, Paglis and Green (2002) had

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


developed a scale of LSE based on leadership behaviours of setting a direction for

the work unit, gaining followers commitment to change goals and overcoming
obstacles to make changes. However, some researchers argued that defining LSE
as leading change in an organisation is too narrowly focused, hence these
researchers have given a new definition to LSE as change, challenge, mentor,
self-discipline, motivate and project credibility (Paglis, 2010).

In order to assess organisational behaviour more accurately, researchers must

identify the more specific performance because self-efficacy focuses on task-
specific capability judgement. Thus, integrating self-efficacy into leadership
study is consistent with its theoretical foundation and needs for specification of
leadership scope. Paglis and Green (2002) further defined leadership as not only
directing a group on a specific task, but also pushing change within an
organisation. To conclude, the flexibility of the definition and measurement of
LSE is appropriate and consistent with the self-efficacys theoretical foundation.

4.5.2 LSE Outcomes

(a) LSE and Individual Leader Performance
Self-efficacy has been found to have a positive correlation with job
performance (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998), and thus LSE is associated with
high performance in the leadership role. Other studies (Chemers et al.,
2000) have also revealed that LSE has a strong leadership rating and is
positively related to few facets of leadership effectiveness (Anderson et al.,
2008). Besides that, Anderson et al. (2008) have identified that self-discipline
LSE is related to supervisor, peer and subordinates ratings of impartial
leadership style.

Furthermore, LSE relates to the judgment of change, getting things done

and achieving difficult objectives. It also relates to a leaders creative and
strategic leadership. Moreover, LSE was also found to be positively related
to the measures of performance (Paglis and Green, 2002). Semadar et al.
(2006) also found that LSE, emotional intelligence and political skills were
significantly associated with managers annual performance appraisal

(b) Individual Differences and Leader Performance

Studies by Chan and Drasgow (2001) found that personality traits were
significantly related to managers motivation to lead (MTL), directly and
indirectly through LSE. In turn, MTL was also found significantly related to
individuals learning goal orientations (Hendricks and Payne, 2007).
Furthermore, Ng et al. (2008) also identified a relationship between
personality traits (such as extraversion, conscientiousness and neuroticism)
Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)

and leadership effectiveness. In fact, all the relationships were mediated by

LSE, either partially or fully.

(c) LSE and Collective Performance

Collective efficacy has been identified as shared belief of group members
about their groups capabilities (Bandura, 1997). The earliest studies found
that leadership confidence was related to LSE, and it was positively related
to collective efficacy. Collective efficacy, on the other hand, was found
positively predicting the performance of beginning-end season, and
controlling previous performance. Other studies have also found that LSE
was related to leaders perception of their groups performance, which in
turn, related to followers collective efficacy predicted for group
performance (Hoyt et al., 2003). In short, LSE is found tobe positively
related to both leaders performance and their work units collective
efficacy and performance (Hoyt et al., 2003).

4.5.3 Practical Applications

Selecting Leaders: Individual Antecedents
Judge and Ilies (2002) have identified that task-specific self-efficacy was
positively related to personality traits of extraversion and being conscientious,
but negatively related to neuroticism. Hendrick and Payne (2007) and Chan and
Drasgow (2001) also found that extraversion and being conscientious are strongly
related to LSE. Not only that, Ng et al. (2008) also posit that sociability and
assertiveness of the extravert values meet the leadership role demands and
conscientious lead to dispositional tenacity and persistence.

Besides that, the other antecedents for leader LSE identified are internal locus of
control, emotional intelligence and learning goal orientation (but this antecedent
role is not obvious). To summarise, the stable individual differences are
important to be considered for the selection of organisational leaders (Paglis,

Creating a High LSE Climate: Contextual Antecedents

Paglis and Green (2002) and Ng et al. (2008) have found that job autonomy was
significantly related to LSE. They found that managers with greater control over
tasks feel more positively about their ability to effectively lead their work units.
Besides that, the availability of resources, such as funds, staff and equipment
(Paglis and Green, 2002); and open culture (Paglis and Green, 2002; Wood and
Bandura, 1989) have been identified as LSE antecedents.

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


In short, three organisational characteristics, namely job autonomy, availability of

resources and organisational culture are likely to create the conditions of
personal flexibility and organisational receptivity to enhance LSE. Furthermore,
managers direct reports who gave high marks to their staff for various
performance indexes, tend to have high LSE. Moreover, subordinate personal
factors, such as ability and attitudes would also influence LSE.

Banduras Sources of Self-efficacy Information

Banduras work on self-efficacy can be used as fundamental for certain practical
implications for increasing LSE (Paglis, 2010). According to Bandura (1982, 1986),
individuals would consider four types of information in forming their self-
efficacy judgment. The four types of self-efficacy information are:

(a) Personal mastery experiences as they will naturally reflect on their previous
successes and failures in assessing their capability to perform;

(b) Vicarious experience by observing the successful model that will influence
their judgment of abilities;

(c) Verbal persuasion of positive performance expectations and

encouragement; and

(d) Personal physiological state when assessing self-efficacy.


Review the article by Paglis (2010) to identify its contributions to the

knowledge of leaders behaviours.

Individuals behaviours in school are motivated by their needs, beliefs and


Maslows hierarchy of needs has five basic categories which are arranged in
prepotency orders: (a) Physiological; (b) Safety and security; (c) Belonging; (d)
Love and social activities; and (e) Self-esteem and self actualisation. Only if
lower-needs are satisfied, the gratification will occur to allow the move to
higher-level needs

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


Herzbergs motivation-hygiene theory postulates two distinct sets of needs:

motivation and hygiene; that lead to workers satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

Achievement and autonomy needs are other strong motivation forces for
many individuals.

Beliefs are what an individual perceive to be true; it is another motivation act

for many individuals.

Attribution theory maintains that motivation is stronger when causes of

outcomes are perceived to be internal, amenable to change and controllable.

Equity theory is about fairness that individuals perceive at the workplace.

Individuals will work hard if they believe they have been treated fairly in
terms of awards, salary, respect and so on.

Expectancy theory asserts that individuals work hard because they believe
that extra effort will improve their performance, and good performance will
be noticed and rewarded, hence they value the rewards.

Self-efficacy is concerned with task accomplishment; it motivates individuals

through "goal-setting, effort to give, period to take to complete the task and
the resilience to failure".

Goal-setting theory suggests that motivation is stronger when an individual

accepts specific, realistic and challenging goals. Feedback is important to
assess the goal progress.

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are different strategies for individual


Leadership self-efficacy refers to leaders confidence judgment in his ability to

carry out behaviour in a leadership role.

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


Ability Hierarchy of needs

Achievement Intrinsic motivation
Attribution theory Job satisfaction
Autonomy Leadership self-efficacy
Beliefs Motivation
Equity theory Motivation-hygiene theory
Expectancy theory Needs theory
Extrinsic motivation Organisational justice
Goal-setting theory Self-efficacy theory

Anderson, D. W., Krajewski, H., Goffin, R. D. & Jackson, D. N. (2008). A

leadership self-efficacy taxonomy and its relation to effective leadership.
The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 595-608.

Anderson, R. Greene, M. & Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers and

students thinking skills, sense of efficacy and student achievement. Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, 34(2), 148-165.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive

theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and

functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural

change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations,

38(6), 551-570.

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


Chan, K. & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and

leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 481-498.

Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B. & May, S. T. (2000). Dispositional affect and

leader effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism and efficacy.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 267-277.

Cherrington, D. (1989). Organisational behaviour: The management of individual

and organisational performance. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Colquitt, J. A., Lepine, J. A. & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Organizational behaviour:

Improving performance and commitment in the workplace (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Chyung, S. Y. (2005). Analyze motivation-hygiene factors to improve satisfaction

levels of your online training programs. Paper presented at 18th Annual
Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Chyung, S. Y. (2011). Analyze motivation-hygiene factors to improve satisfaction

levels of your online training program. 18th Annual Conference on
Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Retrieved from

Fugar, F. D. K. (2007). Frederick Herzbergs motivation-hygiene theory revisited:

The concept and its applicability to clergy. Journal of Science and
Technology, 27(1), 119-130.

Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic

survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159-170.

Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work:
Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2),

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Hoy, W. K. & Miskel, C. G. (2013). Educational administration: Theory, research

and practice (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hendricks, J. W. & Payne, S. C. (2007). Beyond the bog five: Leader goal
orientation as a predictor of leadership effectiveness. Human Performance,
20(4), 317-343.

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


Hofmans, J. (2012). Individual differences in equity models. Psicolgica, 33, 473-


Hoyt, C.L., Halverson, S. K., Murphy, S. E. & Watson, C. B. (2003). Group

leadership: Efficacy and effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research
and Practice, 7(4), 259-274.

Judge, T.A. & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance

motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4),

Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal
setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist,
57(9), 705-717.

Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. O. (2008). Educational administration: Concepts

and practices. Belmont, CA: Cengage/Wadsworth.

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review,

50(4), 370-396.

Mohamadi, F.S., Asadzadeh, H., Ahadi, H. & Jomehri, F. (2011). Testing

Banduras theory in school. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 12(1),

Mowday, R.T., Steersm R.M. & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of
organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 14(2), 224-

Ng, K., Ang, S. & Chan, K. (2008). Personality and leader effectiveness: A
moderated mediation model of leadership self-efficacy, job demands, and
job autonomy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 733-743.

Paglis, L. (2010). Leadership self-efficacy: Research findings and practical

applications. The Journal of Mananegement Development, 29(2), 771-782.

Paglis, L. L. & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and managers

motivation for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(2),

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)


Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control

of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1),

Semadar, A., Robins, G. & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Comparing the validity of multiple
social effectiveness constructs in the prediction of managerial job
performance. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 27(4), 443-461.

Stajkovic, A. D. & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance:

A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240-261.

Sufian Burhan, N. A., Mohamad, M. R., Kurniawan, Y. & Sidek, A.H. (2014). The
impact low, average and high IQ on economic growth and technological
progress: Do all individuals contribute equally? Intelligence, 46, 1-8.

Tshannen-Moran, Hoy, A. W. & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning

and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.

Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an

attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 1-14.

Wood, R. E. & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-

regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 407-415.

Yukl, G. (1998). An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective

leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1),

Copyright Open University Malaysia (OUM)