Banks (1995) - A Deconstructive Look at The Myth of Race and Motivation

Journal of Negro Education
A Deconstructive Look at the Myth of Race and Motivation

Author(s): W. Curtis Banks, Gregory V. McQuater and Janet L. Sonne
Source: The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 3, Myths and Realities: African
Americans and the Measurement of Human Abilities (Summer, 1995), pp. 307-325
Published by: Journal of Negro Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2967211
Accessed: 19-01-2018 06:01 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Negro Education is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of Negro Education
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Fri, 19 Jan 2018 06:01:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
A Deconstructive Look at the Myth of
Race and Motivation
W. Curtis Banks, Department of Psychology, Howard University; Gregory V.

McQuater, Pepsico, Inc.; and Janet L. Sonne, Loma Linda University
This article examines the myth of motivational differences in Black and White children
achievement within a post-positivist paradigm aimed at deconstructing existing explanations rathe
than posing alternative ones. Two replications were conducted of an earlier study that substanti
a cognitive-developmental theory of motivational deficit in Blacks. In the first, the achievemen
task was varied as per the earlier experiment, and racial differences in apparent motivation were
found to be consonant with the patterns reported; in the second, the task was systematically
controlled across age, sex, and race substrata for interest value, and racial differences disappeared.
The implicationsfor theories of motivation andfor the methodological integrity of myth-substantiat-
ing research on Black-White achievement and potential are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
One of the most enduring legacies of any society is its structure of myths. These myths
usually romanticize, through both simplification and exaggeration, key dimensions of
historical experience, along with the principles, values, and moral (as well as pragmatic)
implications that derive from them. Powerful myths have remarkable endurance, evolving
in narrative form along with the society's technical changes, while retaining the original
substance of their central lessons. As such, it is no surprise that certain historical experi-
ences of American society have spawned myths of racial differences whose roots in social,
political, or economic programs have survived the paradigm shift to a postindustrial,
technical/scientific age.
Within the traditional positivistic framework of science, the empirical content of
hypothesis statements consists of their evidential referents. Hypotheses, myth or other-
wise, once substantiated remain in a status of priority until an alternative hypothesis is
advanced of at least equal evidential or empirical substance. Thus, the conventional
sociology of scientific practice gave rise early to the emergence of reconstructionist para-
digms for the engagement of myths regarding the psychology of Black populations (Mon-
tagu, 1942; Stanfield, 1985a, 1985b, 1996). The inherently anti-progressive burden of this
approach handicapped a full-scale attack first upon the myth of intelligence, and later
upon the myth of motivation.
The structure of this scientific mythology is, by now, well known. The behavioral
sciences have largely built upon a pre-existing network of prejudices, stereotypes, and
disinformation to form an edifice of misunderstanding about the nature of behavior and
experience in Black populations (Banks, 1990; Gould, 1981; Montagu, 1942; Stanfield,
1985a, 1985b, 1996). There have been at least three general methodological strategies by
which reformists within the discipline of psychology have sought to redress this situation
Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 3 (1995)

Copyright ? 1996, Howard University 307
(Banks, in press), but only the approach of deconstructionism has undertaken to confront
these myths head-on for the unapologetic purpose of refuting them. Such a deconstructive
perspective seems particularly apropos for the examination of a myth whose vitality seems
to survive even the most thorough critiques (Banks, 1980; Graham, 1994), and that sustains
an enduring scientific belief in the phenomenon of failure and its causes among Black
individuals (McElroy-Johnson, 1993).
In the analysis of race and social-class differences in achievement, a central conceptual
issue has been that of intrinsic motivation. Katz (1967), for example, attributed minority
children's deficiencies in academic achievement to their relative inability to sustain effort
in tasks that are not immediately associated with extrinsic reinforcement. In this regard,
a general hypothesis has been that minority and lower-class individuals fail to perform
as effectively, or be as effectively achievement motivated, as White middle-class persons
in the absence of material or concrete reinforcements.
Several investigators have provided supportive evidence on behalf of this hypothesis.
Zigler and DeLabry (1962) engaged children in a concept formation task that involved
matching colors and shapes under conditions of material (toys) and non- material (verbal)
reinforcement. In their study, middle-class children were found to perform more effectively
with verbal reinforcement, while lower-class children were found to perform effectively
only with material reinforcement. Terrell, Durkin, and Wiesley (1959) presented similar
evidence for their sample of 5- to 11-year-old children asked to perform a discrimination
task. Additionally, Spence (1971) reported that Black 5- to 6-year-olds performed better
with material (candy) than with symbolic (flashing light) reinforcement. Zigler and Kanzer
(1962) suggested that these social-class differences may represent the slower development
among disadvantaged children of patterns of intrinsic motivation and the cognitive ability
to respond to abstract reinforcement. The most generally entertained explanation for this
deficiency relates to the relative failure on the part of lower-class (Davis, 1944; Erickson,
1947) and minority group (Epps, 1970; Katz, 1967) parents to provide systematic reinforce-
ment for effort and positive incentives for success.
Subsequently, Weiner and Peter (1973) have offered a cognitive-developmental con-
ception of the stagelike progression of children from extrinsic (outcome) to intrinsic
(effort) orientations toward achievement. Drawing upon an analogy from stage theories
of intellectual (Piaget, 1948) and moral (Kohlberg, 1969) development, Weiner and Peter
demonstrated that children tend to show a relatively discrete transition from outcome-
centered to effort-centered achievement judgments. While this pattern of development
was not uniformly linear, as it was for moral judgments, one important finding was that
the observed stages "were identical across... .race.. .groups" (p. 307). Furthermore, and
consistent with Zigler and Kanzer's hypothesis, there appeared to be "disparate rates of
development across these race groups in the onset of the stages" (p. 307). Specifically, it
was found that each apparent stage in achievement judgments, especially with regard to
effort, was reached by Black subjects approximately one age interval (three years) later
than by White subjects.
Weiner and Peter's study has been replicated in a number of cultural contexts. McMillan
(1980), for example, using White, Chicano, and Black subjects, found Whites to reward
high effort and punish low effort more than either Blacks or Chicanos; he did not, however,
discuss any developmental trends in this regard. Salili, Maehr, and Gilmore (1976) studied
Iranian students and interpreted differences between their results and those of Weiner
and Peter in terms of the difference in cultural values between Iranians and Americans.
Rogers (1980) found the achievement judgments of English subjects to resemble those of
Weiner and Peter's Americans more than Salili et al.'s Iranians. In a study that was related
308 The Journal of Negro Education
to, but not a replication of, Weiner and Peter, Nichols (1978) compared achievement
judgments of Maori and Pakeha children in New Zealand.
Despite the use of this methodology in studies of various cultural groups, no attempt
has been made to control for possible variations in task interest between the groups.
However, Banks, McQuater, and Hubbard (1977) argue that intrinsic motivation derives
from those interests and value orientations that characterize an individual's regard for
specific tasks. In that sense, high-interest tasks are those that have acquired intrinsic
reinforcement value for the individual, while low-interest tasks are those that lack intrinsic
reinforcement value. Their research demonstrates that effort orientations in achievement
judgments are systematically greater for high-interest task situations than for low interest
task situations. Moreover, the overall valuation of effort in achievement by Black and
White adolescents was found to be undifferentiated when task interest was controlled
across these groups.
An alternative interpretation, then, of the race differences found by Weiner and Peter,
as well as those found in past research on intrinsic achievement motivation, might be
that task interest toward the achievement situations employed by researchers varies across
demographic groups. Zigler and Kanzer, Zigler and DeLabry, and Terrell et al. all used
a single task to compare the motivation and performance of their demographic samples.
Similarly, Weiner and Peter, McMillan, Rogers, and Salili et al. each employed a task
common to the achievement situations described to subjects of all sex, age, and race
groups. In response to all of these tasks and situations, the children in their studies made
evaluative judgments. Thus, insofar as the interest and value orientations of children of
different ages, sexes, and races may differ, the evidence provided by Weiner and Peter
might be as likely to represent the development of task interests as the cognitive develop-
ment of evaluative judgments.
The present experiment was designed to reinvestigate the general issue of develop-
mental patterns in achievement judgments for Black and White children. It was also
designed to investigate the specific patterns of race and developmental differences evoked
by the use of a single task common to all groups versus the use of tasks matched across
age, sex, and race groups for interest value. In this regard, it was endeavored to separate
those patterns possibly associated with cognitive-developmental stages from those associ-
ated with differential interest in, or evaluation of, the task situation.
METHOD
Subjects
The final sample consisted of 145 children between the ages of 7 and 15 years. Subjects
were grouped into age categories of 7- to 9-year-olds (n = 73), 10- to 12-year-olds (n = 39),
and 13- to 15-year-olds (n = 33). Four- to 6-year-olds were excluded from the experiment
when difficulty was encountered in conveying the material of the achievement stories to
them and evoking meaningful responses from them. Additionally, the data for 10 children
within the 7- to 15-year-old sample were discarded because of errors made by those
subjects in recording their evaluative responses.
Within each age group, the sample consisted of Black and White male and female
children, though race and sex were not balanced numerically. All of the subjects were
recruited from the public school system of a city in the mid-Atlantic region of the United
States. All schools in that community are integrated, though the proportions of Black and
White students in the sample were not equal. It was considered essential to draw all
The Journal of Negro Education 309
subjects from a common community and school district in order to hold educational
exposure as closely constant across our age and race samples as possible.'
Procedures
Several weeks prior to the experimental sessions, two experimenters (one Black,
White) visited the schools from which the subject sample was chosen for the purpo
gathering information about the children's interests and activities. The children we
divided into small groups of five and asked to indicate the degree of interest they w
feel about indulging in each of 30 task and activity descriptions. The 7- to 12-year-
were presented with a seven-point Likert scale with options ranging from "like a l
"don't like at all" represented by a progression of very happy to very sad faces. For
task or activity, these children were asked to circle the face that best depicted their
of interest. The 13- to 15-year-old children were tested using a somewhat revised t
and activity list, but they were asked to note their responses using a numerical sev
point scale from 0 ("don't like at all") to 6 ("like a lot"). The data from these respon
constituted our pretest for task interest.
For each race x sex x age group of children, two tasks were selected as the achievem
situations each group would evaluate. For all groups, the task of putting a pu
together-the task used by Weiner and Peter in 1973-constituted the common task a
which the achievement judgments of all subsamples would be compared. A second,
interest task was selected separately by each group. Because each of these tasks receiv
interest rating of approximately 4.5 from each group, they were seen as being subjec
equivalent in interest value across the various age, sex, and race groups. The tasks a
the exact mean ratings for each group are listed in Table I.
TABLE I
Mean Interest Ratings for Achievement Tasks in Common and High-Interest Conditions
SUBJECTS
Age Race Sex COMMON TASK X HIGH-INTEREST TASK X
7-9 White females putting a puzzle 2.58 winning a prize for roller 4.66
together skating
White males 3.39 building a model airplane 4.87
Black females 1.87 making the kick-ball team 4.50
Black males 2.67 building a house with 4.83
blocks
10-12 White females 2.45 drawing a picture 4.82

White males 4.07 building a model airplane 4.78
Black females 4.00 drawing a picture 5.00
Black males 4.00 painting a picture 4.60
13-15 White females 2.77 making the tennis team 4.46
White males 2.00 making the soccer team 4.14
Black females 2.71 winning a card game 4.71
Black males 2.00 building a model airplane 4.40
1 It can tentatively be ruled out that spurious differences in the educati

and White children in our sample contributed to these patterns becaus
same schools and immediate community.
Several weeks later, different experimenters returned to the schools and engaged the
children in responding to a series of achievement situations. For the younger children,
these situations were described as a series of "stories"; for older children, they were
described as "reports." The stories were read aloud to the younger children by one of
the experimenters, and the reports were presented to the older children via recorded
tapes. In either case, subjects listened to a total of 16 such situations, half of which
represented the activity of puzzle solving, with the other half representing each group's
high-interest task activity. The 7- to 9-year-old children and the 10- to 12-year-olds were
tested in groups of two by like-race female experimenters. The 13- to 15-year-old subjects
were tested similarly in groups of five.
As in Weiner and Peter's study, the achievement situations were described in terms
of three variables, each at two possible levels, resulting in eight experimental conditions.
Ability was described as either "high" or "low"; effort was described as either "present"
or "absent" (hereafter also referred to as "high" or "low"); and outcome was described
as either "success" or "failure." Thus, in a given story or report, a hypothetical child
might be described as follows: "Jimmy is good (high ability) at working puzzles," or "He
is not trying (low effort) to do this puzzle," or "He gets the puzzle put together (success)."
After hearing the stories, the 7- to 12-year-old children were then asked to decide to give
the hypothetical child either stars (positive evaluation) or squares (negative evaluation). In
each case, a rating form was provided on which five stars and five squares of increasing
size were printed. The largest star was described as the best, while the largest square was
described as the worst thing to give. Each child was to draw a circle around whichever
star or square he/she wished to give. The 13- to 15-year-old subjects were asked to make
their evaluative ratings of the hypothetical children in the reports they heard using
numerical scales from + 1 to + 5 (favorable evaluation) and -1 to -5 (unfavorable evalua-
tion).
Insofar as the evaluative judgments made by the subjects in the present study were
intended to reflect their own achievement orientations and behaviors, they must be
regarded at some level as projective. In this regard, it was important to ensure that the
subjects felt they were making evaluative judgments about other children who were
similar to themselves on important dimensions. For instance, Banks (1976) has recently
shown that evaluative judgments and the use of reinforcement sanctions vary systemati-
cally as a function of the perceived similarity of the target person to the evaluator.
Therefore, for each group of subjects, the age, sex, and race of the children referred to in
the achievement descriptions was the same as that of the respondent. Each group of
subjects tested was consistent in age, sex, and race, and the experimenters opened the
description of the achievement stories or reports by stating that they concerned "children
very much like you." They then presented a picture of one of the children in the stories/
reports to the subject group, that picture being of a like-aged, -sex, and -race child.
The order of the achievement descriptions was randomized. All other procedural
details were the same as those described by Weiner and Peter, with the exception of the
manipuation of tasks. The resulting design was a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 factorial, varying
Ability, Effort, Outcome, and Task Interest at two levels within subjects; varying Sex and
Race at two levels between subjects; and varying Age at three levels between subjects.
RESULTS
The evaluative judgments of achievement that the subjects made in response to a

common task situation were analyzed separately from the judgments they made on high-
interest tasks. In each instance, the results were compared to those reported by Weiner
and Peter (1973). Furthermore, the results of the analysis of judgments made on tasks
controlled for high interest value were compared to those evoked across age and demo-
graphic groups by a common task. However, discussion of interaction effects beyond
second-order will be omitted from this article because their complexity makes interpreta-
tion difficult.
Common Task
The results of the analysis of variance of achievement judgments for the common
task are summarized in Table II.. No main-effect difference was obtained between the
achievement judgments of Black and White subjects. This result is consistent with Weiner
and Peter's finding that the racial groups in their study did not differ overall in the net
rewardingness of their achievement evaluations. Further consistent with Weiner and Peter
was our finding of no overall sex differences in achievement judgments. However, the
main-effect trend of age reported by Weiner and Peter was not replicated in the present
study (F<1). Instead, we found a divergence between the age trends of Black and White
subjects (Race x Age: F =4.99; df=2/133; p<.01).
With age, White children tended to increase in the overall rewardingness of their
evaluative judgments, while Black children tended to decrease in that respect with age.
Both groups remained within a range of positive scores, indicating that, in all instances,
reward was given more than punishment. Overall rewardingness in evaluative judgments
was greater among Black males (R =1.05) than among Black females (X= .52), and less
among White males (R= .97) than among White females (R = 1.22). This interaction of
race and sex was significant in the present study (F = 4.81; df= 1/133; p<.05), while it did
not obtain for Weiner and Peter.
Outcome. Overall, evaluative judgments of achievement tended to be more positive
for success (X= 2.52) than for failure (X= .64). This highly significant main effect
(F = 169.72; df= 1/133; p<.001) replicated that found in Weiner and Peter's and Wein
and Kukla's (1970) studies. The tendency to reward success and punish failure did not
generally differ across younger and older children; however, the failure to obtain an Age
x Outcome trend was due to the moderating variable of Race (Race x Age x Outcome:
F=6.85; df=2/133; p<.01) (see Figure I).
In the present study, older Black children tended to reward success at roughly the
same rate as younger Black children, although they punished failure more severely than
did their younger peers. By contrast, older White children both rewarded success in
achievement less and punished failure in achievement less than did younger VVhite chil-
dren. The overall difference between rewardingness on success and failure increased with
age for Black children and decreased with age for White children. It is important to note,
however, that in separate analyses, the overall interaction of Race and Age was not
significant for evaluative Judgments of success (F<1), though it was significant for judg-
ments of failure (F = 7.28; df= 1/133; p<.01). Black and White children tended to be uniform
across age in the tendency to reward success, but the tendency to punish failure increased
with age for Blacks and decreased with age among Whites.
Effort. Consistent with past findings (Weiner & Peter, 1973; Weiner & Kukla, 1970),
the children in the present study tended to reward effort (X = 2.09) and punish the lack
of effort (X = -.21) in achievement (F = 93.63; df= 1 /133; p<.001). This tendency remained
consistent overall across Age (Age x Effort: F = 2.49), in contrast to the significant Age x
Effort interaction found by Weiner and Peter. However, as Table II shows, the interaction
of Race, Age, and Effort obtained significantly (F = 3.77; df= 2/133; p<.05). The difference
in the amount of reward for effort minus the reward (or punishment) for lack of effort
Table II
Analysis of Variance of Achievement Judgments on Common Task
SOURCE df MS F
Race (A) 1 17.64 3.04

Age (B) 2 3.50 .60
Sex (C) 1 3.61 .62
Ability (D) 1 23.48 3.02
Effort (E) 1 974.62 93.63***
Outcome (F) 1 1838.95 169.72***
AB 2 29.03 4.99**
AC 1 27.94 4.81
AD 1 7.05 .91
AE 1 7.99 .77
AF 1 .72 .07
BC 2 2.27 .39
BD 2 9.34 1.20
BE 2 25.88 2.49
BF 2 22.06 2.04
CD 1 4.58 .59
CE 1 .08 .01
CF 1 .49 .05
DE 1 35.54 7.06**
DF 1 2.71 .57
EF 1 .39 .10
ABC 2 4.76 .82
ABD 2 6.36 .82
ABE 2 39.24 3.77*
ABF 2 74.24 6.85**
ACD 1 26.06 3.35
ACE 1 6.39 .61
ACF 1 3.71 .34
ADE 1 1.89 .37
ADF 1 3.14 .66
AEF 1 1.10 .29
BCD 2 3.96 .51
BCE 2 .17 .02
BCF 2 7.97 .74
BDE 2 7.78 1.55
BDF 2 18.69 3.94*
BEF 2 4.64 1.21
CDE 1 8.13 1.61
CDF 1 2.94 .62
CEF 1 2.27 .59
DEF 1 .02 .01
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
FIGURE I
Evaluation of Achievement Success and Failure for Black and White Children for the Common Task
Condition, as a Function of Age
SUCCESS
-3
2-~ 0 0 -----
LaJ
2-
WHITE CHILDREN
7-9 0I-12 13-15

AGE (YEARS)
(resultant effort) reached a peak for Black subjects in the 10- to 12-year-old age group,
then declined for Black subjects in the 13- to 15-year-old age group (see Figure II). This
trend contrasted that of White children, for whom the amount of punishment for resultant
effort increased with age.
Two aspects of these findings are of particular interest. On one hand, the overall trend
of Age x Effort that Weiner and Peter described as representing maximum resultant effort
for children in the 10- to 12-year-old age group were obtained in the present study only
for Black children. Although this trend replicated very closely the findings of Weiner and
Peter, the relative positions of White and Black subjects across age were reversed. One
possible explanation for this may be the peculiar patterns of task interest that characterize
particular subject populations, both demographically and geographically. Of particular
interest is the rough uniformity we found between Black children's ratings of interest in
the puzzle task across age groups and their resultant effort judgments. As would be
predicted, resultant effort increased for Black children in the 10- to 12-year-old age group
FIGURE 11
Resultant Effort Judgments for Black and White Children for the Common Task Condition, as a
Function of Age
fr4
w
i~3
0~~~~~~~~~~~0
-J
I-
'S
-J-I_
- - BLACK CHILDREN
cr -WHITE CHILDREN
-2
7-9 10-12 13-15

AGE (YEARS)
with greater interest in the puzzle task; and it decreased for Black children in the 13- to
15-year-old age group, who had lesser interest in that task. This correspondence does not
appear to have occurred for the White children in the subject sample. It is possible that
the interest values of the puzzle task for Black and White children were reversed in the
Weiner and Peter study, or that the correspondence between task interest and resultant
effort they observed was different from that obtained for Blacks in the present study.
Unfortunately, the dilemma of interpretation of these results cannot be resolved by a
comparison of the present replication with Weiner and Peter's study because there is no
way to audit the accuracy of their data report.
Another trend noted in the present investigation was the interaction between Effort
and Ability (F = 7.06; df= 1/133; p<.01). Overall, effort was rewarded somewhat more for
individuals possessing low ability (X = 2.13) than for individuals possessing high ability
(X = 2.04), while lack of effort by low-ability persons (X = -.61) was punished more than
was lack of effort by high-ability persons (X= .19). The general implication of this pattern
would appear to be that effort was perceived by the children in the present study as
being more important for persons who lack ability than for persons who are endowed
with high ability.
In contrast to the findings reported by Weiner and Peter, the children in the present
study did not reward success more when it was related to high effort than when it was
related to low effort (Effort x Outcome: F<1); neither was failure punished more severely
when it occurred as a result of low effort than when it occurred despite high effort. There
was no overall significant trend toward interaction between Age, Effort, and Outcome
(F= 1.21).
From the evidence on moral development (e.g., Weiner & Peter, 1973), we predicted
that resultant effort would generally increase with age and resultant outcome would
decrease, both uniformly. Weiner and Peter, however, found a complementary and highly
inconsistent relationship between effort and outcome across age. As effort became more
important in achievement judgments, outcome became less important, and vice-versa
alternately, until children reached the 16- to 18-year-old age group. For the older children
in Weiner and Peter's study (those in the 13- to 15- and 16- to 18-year-old age groups),
outcome was more important than effort in their achievement judgments. Neither this
nor the more uniform interaction of effort and outcome predicted from classical models
of cognitive development were obtained in the present study.
Ability. No overall significant tendency was noted for high ability (X = 1.12) to be
rewarded more than low ability (X =.76) in achievement judgments (F = 3.02; df=
p<.10), although a trend toward some favoring of high ability was apparent.2 Even though
the complex cognitive reasoning and formal operations that lead to the inference of high
effort in the success of low-ability individuals is assumed to begin development at age
11 (e.g., Weiner & Peter, 1973), the children in the present study failed to evidence this
trend in either the younger (7- to 9-year-old) or the older (10- to 12- and 13- to 15-year-
old) age groups.
The results of the present study were more consistent with Nichols's (1978) assertion
that subjects favor high ability over high effort. The significant interaction of Age x Ability
x Outcome obtained in the present study (F=3.94; df=2/133; p<.05) indicates that, with
age, children increasingly tended to reward success with high ability more than success
despite low ability. Concurrently, the younger children (ages 7 to 9) tended to punish
failure more in a low-ability individual than in an individual with high ability, while the
older children punished failure with low ability less than failure with high ability. This
latter trend suggests some orientation in older children toward a moral basis for punish-
ment in judging achievement or alternatively toward a formal operations level of causal
reasoning about behavior. However, it is not clear whether higher level reasoning is failing
to be used in the matter of positive evaluations or whether moral considerations simply fail
to play as significant a role in determining reward as they do in determining punishment of
persons who are disadvantaged by low ability. Another possible explanation is provided
by Harari and Covington (1981), who suggest that Weiner and Peter's methodology taps
both the students' personal beliefs about achievement and their attributions regarding
teachers' beliefs. Explicitly separating the two, they found students from first grade
through college to be unequivocal in valuing high ability.
High-Interest Task
The analysis of achievement judgments in response to task situations controlled across
subject samples for interest value provides an important comparison for the general results
2 In the present investigation, 16- to 18-year-old children were omitted, although it was this age group in
which Weiner and Peter found their subjects gave greater reward for low than for high ability. Rogers (1980)
reports that this development occurred at age 15 among his subjects in the United Kingdom.
of the above analysis as well as the specific demographic trends. A summary of the
analysis of variance of these evaluative judgments is presented in Table III. Several striking
differences may be noted between the achievement judgments reported in the present
study and those noted in earlier studies.
On the one hand, the Black children in our sample (X =.45) showed a marked trend
toward less overall rewardingness in their reinforcement of achievement than did the
White children (X= 1.44). This highly significant trend (F = 24.85; df= 1/133; p<.001) d
not obtain for achievement judgments compared across Black and White children on the
common task in either Weiner and Peter's investigation or our own, as reported above.
Additionally, males (X= .69) were found overall to be less rewarding in their achievement
judgments than females (X= 1.20; F = 6.63; df= 1/133; p<.05).
On the other hand, no significant age trend was noted (F = 2.51). The overall level of
rewardingness in achievement judgments remained constant for both younger and older
children. More specifically, however, this failure to obtain a main effect for age was a
function of the divergence in rewardingness of Black and White children across age groups
(Age x Race: F = 3.67; df= 2/133; p<.05). Black children in our sample tended to decrease
in overall rewardingness with age, while White children showed a marginal trend toward
increasing in rewardingness with age. Overall, Black 13- to 15-year-old children used
more punishment than reward in judging achievement (X = -.23). Several possible infer-
ences may be drawn from this, both in terms of the antecedents and the consequences of
such judgments for achievement among Blacks; however, a discussion of the implications
of these findings will be deferred until we consider more specifically some of the trends
outlined below.
Outcome. As in past studies, success in achievement (X = 2.53) was rewarded more
than failure (X=.64). This highly significant main effect of outcome on achievement
(F = 158.23; df= 1/133; p<.001) was even stronger for Black children than for Whites. The
significant interaction of Race x Outcome (F = 3.95; df= 1 /133; p<.05) primarily represents
the tendency for Black children (X = -1.39) to punish failure more so than White children
(X = -.10), particularly those in the 13- to 15-year-old age group. This trend is illustrated
in Figure III.
The older children in our study showed less concern with outcome in achievement
than did the younger children (Age x Outcome: F=8.21; df=2/133; p<.001). This trend
was consistent for both Black and White subjects. Furthermore, the tendency to reward
success in achievement more when effort was present than when effort was absent also
increased with age (Age x Effort x Outcome: F = 8.08; df= 2/133; p<.001). The predominant
role of effort in achievement judgments was achieved by children in the 10- to 12-year-
old group and sustained by those in the 13- to 15-year-old group.
Effort. The overall effect of effort in determining achievement judgments was highly
sjgnificant (F= 138.68; df= 1/133; p<.001). Independent of success or failure, effort
(X = 2.34) was rewarded more than lack of effort (X = -.46) in achievement. Moreover,
this tendency was found to increase with age (Age x Effort: F = 5.95; df= 2/133; p<.01).
The correspondence of this age trend, one of increased differential reward of effort and
lack of effort, with the trend toward decreased differential reward of success and failure
with age reported above, was not demonstrated clearly by either the present or Weiner
and Peter's study. Weiner and Peter found an age trend for effort but not for outcome.
In our investigation of achievement judgments of the same common task used by Weiner
and Peter, neither an Age x Effort nor an Age x Outcome trend was obtained.
Even more germane to our discussion of demographic comparisons is the finding of
a further discrepancy between the results we obtained for the high-interest task versus
the common task and those reported by Weiner and Peter. On both counts in the earlier
Table III
Analysis of Variance of Achievement Judgments on High-interest Tasks
SOURCE df MS F
Race (A) 1 180.84 24.85***

Age (B) 2 18.24 2.51
Sex (C) 1 48.21 6.63
Ability (D) 1 40.25 9.16
Effort (E) 1 1446.28 138.68***
Outcome (F) 1 1854.31 158.23***
AB 2 26.73 3.67*
AC 1 14.49 1.99
AD 1 2.31 .53
AE 1 8.86 .85
AF 1 46.34 3.95
BC 2 11.66 1.60
BD 2 2.45 .56
BE 2 62.02 5.95**
BF 2 96.23 8.21
CD 1 1.81 .41
CE 1 .09 .01
CF 1 8.59 .73
DE 1 15.12 3.35
DF 1 11.30 3.15
EF 1 7.47 1.47
ABC 2 9.60 1.32
ABD 2 6.84 1.56
ABE 2 16.92 1.62
ABF 2 24.56 2.09
ACD 1 13.43 3.06
ACE 1 1.47 .14
ACF 1 18.59 1.59
ADE 1 20.82 4.61
ADF 1 .16 .04
AEF 1 3.71 .73
BCD 2 12.17 2.77
BCE 2 3.69 .35
BCF 2 1.50 .13
BDE 2 3.12 .69
BDF 2 8.41 2.34
BEF 2 41.12 8.08***
CDE 1 8.51 1.88
CDF 1 5.16 1.44
CEF 1 1.19 .23
DEF 1 .19 .05
*p<.05; **p<.
FIGURE III
Evaluation of Achievement Success and Failure for Black and White Children for the High-interest
Task Condition, as a Function of Age
4 SUCCESS
z 0
2 _ "
LiJ
*-1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*4
---- BLACK CHILDREN

-2 WHITE CHILDREN
7-9 10-12 13-15

AGE (YEARS)
study, comparison of racial groups on resultant effort in the common task situation yielded
apparent Black-White developmental differences (Race x Age x Effort). In Weiner and
Peter's study, Blacks appeared to reach each level of resultant effort approximately one
age interval behind White children. This trend was reversed in direction, though consistent
in form, in our replication. However, when task-interest was controlled across the demo-
graphic samples, no such apparent differences in developmental pace were obtained (Race
x Age x Effort: F = 1.62). Figure IV shows that the general direction of development in effort
orientations to achievement was consistent across groups of Black and White children. The
only divergence in resultant effort between Black children (X = 4.41) and White children
(X = 2.77) was seen among those in the 10- to 12-year-old age group, but statistical signifi-
cance was not achieved (t133= 1.93; p>.O5). Though older Black children showed a slight
tendency to reward effort less and punish the lack of effort more than their White counter-
parts, neither of these trends was significant.
FIGURE IV
Resultant Effort judgments for Black and White Children for the High-Interest Task Conditio
Function of Age
3~~~
LUJ
w2/
-I
- --BLACK CHILDREN
2 HWHITE CHILDREN
7-9 10-12 13-15

AGE (YEARS)
One racial difference obtained in th

and effort. Among White children, re
reward or punishment given for lack
than when ability was high (X= .49).
(X =.74) resultant effort was noted
df= 1/133; p<.05). One explanation fo
everyone, regardless of level of abi
more important element for those
latter conception seems highly utili
rather than effort in equal measur
moral orientation, such a practical o
children but not Black children.
Ability. Overall, high ability (X = 1.17) was rewarded more than low ability (X = 0.71)
when task interest was controlled for (F = 9.16; df= 1/133; p<.01). This finding is a clear
departure from that reported above or by Weiner and Peter. Weiner and Peter, for instance,
found that, with age, lack of ability became a more positively evaluated element than
presence of ability. In the present study, the difference in reward of ability and reward
of lack of ability (resultant ability) decreased slightly from younger (7- to 9-year-olds,
X= .69) to older (13- to 15-year-olds, X =.41) children, but remained constant in direction.
In further contrast was the absence of a tendency for children to punish failure with
ability more than failure without ability, or to reward success without ability more than
success with ability. Both these trends obtained increasingly with age in Weiner and
Peter's study. The opposite was found significant in our analysis, as neither trend was
obtained (F = 2.34).
Combined Analysis for the Common and High-Interest Tasks
In addition to the disparities highlighted thus far that arose from the different treat-
ments of the task situation, a few important trends that emerged from a combined analysis
are deserving of particular emphasis. Perhaps the most surprising disparity in the patterns
of achievement judgments evoked when the common task was used across demographic
samples versus those instances when task interest was systematically controlled was the
emergence of race and sex differences that previously were obscured or suppressed.
In the present study, Black children showed systematically more negative evaluative
orientations to achievement when task interest was controlled than they did when it was
held "objectively" constant. The opposite was found to obtain with White children (Task
Interest x Race: F = 9.41; df= 1/133; p<.O05). A spurious convergence between the overall
achievement evaluations of Black and White children may have obtained as long as race
comparisons proceeded on a single task; however, relative to task situations of equal
subjective interest, Black children were inclined to be less rewarding overall than were
White children.
A similar pattern emerged from comparisons of male and female children. In response
to the common task situation, males were more rewarding overall than females, but when
evaluative judgments were evoked in response to tasks of equal subjective interest to
girls and boys, boys were found to be less rewarding overall. This interaction of Sex x
Task Interest was highly significant (F - 8.61; df= 1/133; p<.O05). Perhaps the most impor-
tant finding for our present discussion was that Race x Age x Effort trends failed to obtain
when task interest was controlled for across demographic samples. Furthermore, effort
tended generally to be rewarded more, and lack of effort to be punished more, when
tasks were controlled for high-interest (Task Interest x Effort: F = 5.86; df= 1/133; p<.O2).
DISCUSSION
Several important trends emerged in the development of achievement judgments when

task interest was controlled for. First, a somewhat more uniform pattern of increase in
effort orientations across age was elicited, together with a corresponding trend across age
in decreased outcome orientations. Consistent with the implications of Kohlberg's (1969)
model of intellectual and moral development, the children in the present study indeed
appeared to become more concerned with effort in achievement as they became less
concerned with achievement outcomes. These complementary effects were not demon-
strated in either Weiner and Peter's analysis of achievement judgments in children or in
our replication of their common task procedures. Furthermore, for the first time ability,
representing a largely utilitarian orientation, emerged as an important dimension in
achievement judgments. The greater reward attached to high ability relative to low ability
is not only contrary to a moral basis for the judgment of achievement but also to the
implications of Weiner and Peter's earlier data. Those authors found that children tended
to reward success more in persons of low ability than in persons of high ability. Though
such a trend of Ability x Outcome interaction did not obtain in the present study, there
did arise an important effect associated with the interaction of Ability and Effort: White
children showed what might be considered a utilitarian attitude in rewarding effort more
in persons of low ability than in persons of high ability-as if effort was required of those
who most needed to exert it. In contrast, Black children showed what might be termed
a moralistic orientation, rewarding effort in high-ability persons more so than in low-
ability persons-as if effort was valued most for those who should exert it.
Alternatively, and at a different level, these divergent patterns may reflect an important
aspect of the differences between how Black and White children approach achievement
situations: while White children may perceive hard work as a means for compensating
low aptitudes, Black children may perceive such efforts as relatively useless. More gener-
ally, Black children may learn that efforts at achievement are relatively unrewarding and
that the incentives for success are less reliable than the consequences for failure. Black
children in the present study punished failure and lack of effort somewhat more than
did White children and were less rewarding of achievement overall; however, they
rewarded the presence of effort in achievement somewhat less than did White children.
One traditional interpretation of such a pattern in Black children is related to childrear-
ing practices and early learning. For example, Epps (1969) suggests that fear and avoidance
of failure is stronger in Black children than hope of success because Black parents custom-
arily punish failure more than they reward effort and success. One important implication
of such a conjecture has been that Blacks have been found to show less concern overall
than Whites for effort in achievement (Katz, 1967), an hypothesis that is discounted by
the resultant effort scores obtained for Blacks in the present study. A uniform pattern
emerged in the overall effort orientations of Black and White children across our age
samples, an effect that diverges from the findings of Weiner and Peter.
One possible explanation for this might be a particularly strong assumption by the
Black children in our study of the intrinsic source of motivation inherent in high-interest
task situations. Such an assumption could easily lead to a reticence to reward extrinsically
that effort which ought to derive from intrinsic interest. Not only might such an assumption
of intrinsic motivation argue against the need for evaluative rewards, but the imposition
of such extrinsic contingencies may be regarded as potentially disruptive of the otherwise
self-maintaining response. In this sense, extrinsic reinforcement may be perceived as most
effectively and appropriately applied toward the control of responses that are unexpected
or undesired-in this case, a lack of effort toward tasks that ought to be sufficiently
interesting to evoke and maintain indulgence. The overall implication might be that Black
children learn a somewhat more rigid and demanding expectation for intrinsic motivation
and effort in certain task contexts than do White children. Such learning might even be
essential for individuals who can expect systematically to receive less extrinsic reward
for their efforts and performance within the general educational-vocational domain.
It is important in this regard to consider that the locus for learning such expectations
for reinforcement may be other than the Black home per se. Banks (1976), for example,
has found that observers will customarily attribute the failures of persons perceived as
dissimilar more to a lack of motivation than the failures of persons perceived as similar
to themselves. Correspondingly, dissimilar persons are punished more for their failures
(which are, again, generally attributed to lack of effort or motivation) than are persons
perceived as similar. Not only may significant evaluative and reinforcement agents in
achievement situations behave consistently with these findings, but Black children may
be sorely aware of that behavior and of its attributional implications, and consequently
model such patterns within a role that most likely simulates that of a formal evaluator.
CONCLUSION
Notwithstanding the importance of these specific interpretations and implications of

our findings, a more general point is made by the present research. The search for compara-
tive differences between Black and White children in achievement motivation has com-
monly proceeded without regard for the moderating variable of interest (Banks, McQuater,
& Hubbard, 1978). In the absence of any control for the effects of interest in the achievement
tasks used across race samples, such divergent patterns as normally obtain may reflect
no more than the differential "cultural" values placed by those populations upon a given
activity. While such patterns may clearly speak to the issue of differential motivation
toward a common task, they offer no support to the inference of global trait differences
with regard to cognitive development or the capacity for intrinsic motivation.
Furthermore, a very general and fundamental aspect of motivation may have been
overlooked. The presence or absence of what is commonly called intrinsic motivation
may correspond directly to the interest value of a task for a given individual. Some
activities and their related stimulus contexts may be associated in the experience of an
individual with certain important reinforcers, particularly those of parental approval and
the general support and regard of one's immediate reference community. Moreover, the
capacity of a given activity or stimulus situation to evoke and maintain or otherwise
secondarily reinforce behavior in the absence of extrinsic rewards may be directly related
to the earlier learning of the individual and to the immediate value structure of the social
context. In this regard, the question of what values and interests children bring with them
to achievement contexts such as school is critical for understanding the manner in which
effective striving may be elicited. But this question may be no more critical than the one
concerning the manner in which the immediate social context may be made conducive
to the transmission of new values and interests and the acquisition, by the introduction
of new tasks, of the capacity to sustain effort. Further implied by this analysis is the fact
that one manner in which children and evaluative judges such as teachers may be in discord
is the differential values each group holds regarding a given task, and the corresponding
presumptions made about the importance or naturalness of effort. A failure to recognize
the need for initial extrinsic support systems in the indulgence of an activity, prior to the
eventual removal of all but the most minimal incentives for the maintenance of "intrinsic"
motivation, could lead to a failure to evoke in some children an early and enduring
interest and devotion to academic tasks.
This may actually help to explain the observations that have led some researchers to
a search for the "cultural" explanations for the highly situational variability of motivation
in Black children (Allen & Boykin, 1992; Dunn, Gemake, Jalali, & Zenhausern, 1990;
Nelson-LeGall & Jones, 1990). It may also provide a firm functional analytic framework
for the examination of the powerful influence of parental values and behaviors upon the
development of motivation and achievement in Black individuals (Connell & Spencer,
1994; Ford, 1993; Winborne & Dardaine-Ragguet, 1993). In both these ways the deconstruc-
tion of the traditional myth of motivation and race may clear the theoretical landscape
for the growth of new conceptual models.
REFERENCES
Allen, B. A., & Boykin, A. W. (1992). African American children and the educational process:
Alleviating cultural discontinuity through prescriptive pedagogy. School of Psychology Review,
21(4), 586-596.
Banks, W. C. (1976). The effects of perceived similarity upon the use of reward and punishment.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 131-138.
Banks, W. C. (1980). Achievement in Blacks: A case study in cultural diversity in motivation.
In E. Gordon (Ed.), Human diversity and pedagogy (pp. 8.1-8.38). Washington, DC: NIE Publications.
Banks, W. C. (1990). A review of some scientific myths and stereotypes that impede the educa
progress of Blacks. Testimony presented to the Subcommittee on Select Education, United States
Congress, House of Representatives.
Banks, W. C. (in press). Theory and method in the growth of Black psychology. In R. Jones
(Ed.), Advances in Black psychology. Berkeley, CA: Cobb & Henry.
Banks, W. C., McQuater, G. V., & Hubbard, J. L. (1977). Task-liking and intrinsic-extrinsic
achievement orientations in Blacks. Journal of Black Psychology, 3(2), 61-71.
Banks, W. C., McQuater, G. V., & Hubbard, J. L. (1978). Toward a reconceptualization of
the social-cognitive bases of achievement orientations in Blacks. Review of Educational Research,
3, 381-397.
Connell, J. P., & Spencer, M. B. (1994). Educational risk and resilience in African-American
youth: Context, self, action, and outcomes in school. Child Development, 65(2), 493-506.
Davis, A. (1944). Socialization and adolescent personality. In B. H. Nelson, Adolescence (43rd
Yearbook, Part I) (pp. 198-216). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
Dunn, R., Gemake, J., Jalali, F., & Zenhausern, R. (1990). Cross-cultural differences in learning
styles of elementary-age students from four ethnic backgrounds. Journal of Multicultural Counseling
and Development, 18(2), 68-93.
Epps, E. (1969). Negro academic motivation and performance: An overview. Journal of Social
Issues, 25, 5-11.
Epps, E. (1970). Interpersonal relations and motivation: Implications for teachers of disadvan-
taged children. Journal of Negro Education, 39(1), 14-25.
Erickson, M. C. (1947). Social status and child-rearing practices. In The Committee on the
Teaching of Social Psychology of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (Eds.),
Readings in social psychology (pp. 494-501). New York: Holt.
Ford, D. (1993). Black students' achievement orientation as a function of perceived family
achievement orientation and demographic variables. Journal of Negro Education, 62(1), 47-66.
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: W. W. Norton.
Graham, S. (1994). Motivation in African Americans. Review of Educational Research, 64(1),
55-117.
Katz, I. (1967). The socialization of academic motivation in minority group children. In S.
Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 133-191). Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stages in the development of moral thought and action. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston.
McElroy-Johnson, B. (1993). Giving voice to the voiceless. Harvard Educational Review,
63(1), 85-104.
McMillan, J. H. (1980). Children's causal attributions in achievement situations. Journal of
Social Psychology, 112, 31-39.
Montagu, A. (1942). Man's most dangerous myth. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nelson-LeGall, S., & Jones, E. (1990). Help-seeking behavior of Black children. Child Develop-
ment, 61(2), 581-589.
Nichols, J. (1978). Development of causal attributions and evaluative responses to success
and failure in Maori and Pakeha children. Developmental Psychology, 14(6), 687-688.
Piaget, J. (1948). The moral judgment of the child. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Rogers, C. (1980). The development of sex differences in evaluations of others' successes and
failures. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 243-252.
Salili, F., Maehr, M., & Gilmore, G. (1976). Achievement and morality: A cross-cultural analysis
of causal attribution and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(3), 327-337.
Spence, J. (1971). Do material rewards enhance the performance of lower-class children? Child
Development, 142(5), 1461-1470.
Stanfield, J. H., II. (1985a). The ethnocentric basis of social science knowledge production.
Review of Research in Education, 12, 387-415.
Stanfield, J. H., II. (1985b). Philanthropy and Jim Crow in American social science. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Stanfield, J. H., II. (1996). The myth of race and the human sciences. Journal of Negro Education,
64(3), 218-231.
Terrell, G., Durkin, K., & Wiesley, M. (1959). Social class and the nature of incentive in
discriminative learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 270-272.
Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. (1970). An attributional analysis of achievement motivation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 1-20.
Weiner, B., & Peter, N. (1973). A cognitive-developmental analysis of achievement and moral
judgments. Developmental Psychology, 2(3), 290-309.
Winborne, D. G., & Dardaine-Ragguet, P. (1993). Parallels and divergence in the at-risk/
mainstream conversation: Adolescent voices. High School Journal, 6(3), 195-204.
Zigler, E., & DeLabry, S. (1962). Concept-switching in middle-class, lower-class and retarded
children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65(4), 267-273.
Zigler, E., & Kanzer, P. (1962). The effectiveness of two classes of verbal reinforcers on the
performance of middle and lower-class children. Journal of Personality, 30(2), 157-163.

Banks (1995) - A Deconstructive Look at The Myth of Race and Motivation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Banks (1995) - A Deconstructive Look at The Myth of Race and Motivation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Negro Education

A Deconstructive Look at the Myth of Race and Motivation

W. Curtis Banks, Department of Psychology, Howard University; Gregory V.

Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 3 (1995)

308 The Journal of Negro Education

The Journal of Negro Education 309

10-12 White females 2.45 drawing a picture 4.82

1 It can tentatively be ruled out that spurious differences in the educati

310 The Journal of Negro Education

The evaluative judgments of achievement that the subjects made in response to a

The Journal of Negro Education 311

312 The Journal of Negro Education

Race (A) 1 17.64 3.04

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

The Journal of Negro Education 313

7-9 0I-12 13-15

314 The Journal of Negro Education

7-9 10-12 13-15

The Journal of Negro Education 315

316 The Journal of Negro Education

The Journal of Negro Education 317

Race (A) 1 180.84 24.85***

318 The Journal of Negro Education

---- BLACK CHILDREN

7-9 10-12 13-15

The Journal of Negro Education 319

7-9 10-12 13-15

One racial difference obtained in th

320 The Journal of Negro Education

Combined Analysis for the Common and High-Interest Tasks

Several important trends emerged in the development of achievement judgments when

The Journal of Negro Education 321

322 The Journal of Negro Education

Notwithstanding the importance of these specific interpretations and implications of

The Journal of Negro Education 323

324 The Journal of Negro Education

The Journal of Negro Education 325

You might also like

p<.05; p<.01; p<.001