University of Iowa

Masthead Logo Iowa Research Online

Theses and Dissertations

Summer 2018

The sociology of grit: cross-cultural approaches to

social stratification
Hye Won Kwon
University of Iowa

Copyright © 2018 Hye Won Kwon

This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/6454

Recommended Citation
Kwon, Hye Won. "The sociology of grit: cross-cultural approaches to social stratification." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis,
University of Iowa, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.4oeodiua

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd

Part of the Sociology Commons

THE SOCIOLOGY OF GRIT: CROSS-CULTURAL APPROACHES TO SOCIAL
STRATIFICATION

by

Hye Won Kwon

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree in Sociology in the
Graduate College of
The University of Iowa

August 2018

Thesis Supervisor: Professor Steven Hitlin

 Copyright by

HYE WON KWON

2018

All Rights Reserved

 Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

____________________________

PH.D. THESIS

_________________

This is to certify that the PhD. thesis of

Hye Won Kwon

has been approved by the Examining Committee for

the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree
in Sociology at the August 2018 graduation.

Thesis Committee: ____________________________________________

Steven Hitlin, Thesis Supervisor

____________________________________________
Jennifer Glanville

____________________________________________
Freda Lynn

____________________________________________
Sarah Harkness

____________________________________________
Rebecca Neel
To my parents

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Steven Hitlin. I am so

grateful for his continuous support, encouragement, motivation, enthusiasm, inspiration

and guidance. Without his mentoring, I would have never made it through the tough times

in my graduate school years. I thank my committee members, including Jennifer Glanville,

Freda Lynn, Sarah Harkness and Rebecca Neel, for their great expertise, support and

advice on this project and beyond. I also thank Rengin Firat who generously allowed me

to include the grit measure in a cross-national survey, Moral Schemas, Cultural Conflict,

and Socio-Political Action (2015), which was used in Chapter 4, and Jae-on Kim and

Sanghag Kim who provided more general academic advice. My dissertation research

(particularly data collection for Chapters 3 and 5) was supported by several institutions

including the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI), the Graduate

& Professional Student Government, the Center for Asian and Pacific Studies, and the

Department of Sociology at the University of Iowa. An earlier version of Chapter 2 and

some parts of Chapters 1 and 6 were published in Sociology Compass and the edited book

titled, Agency at Work: An Agentic Perspective on Professional Learning and

Development. I thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

I want to extend my appreciation to my friends in South Korea and the United

States, including Kyu Young, Joonseok, Jihey, and Jinah. I am so grateful to have you all

in my life. Last but not least, I would like to thank my family for their enduring support

and love. My parents, Gyuhee Lee and Man Jung Kwon, help me cultivate my sense of

control and grit. Thank you for always being there for me.

iii
 ABSTRACT

Grit, the concept consisting of perseverance and passion towards a desired long-

term goal, has been spotlighted as a key psychological resource that is predictive of

positive life outcomes including academic achievement, professional success and

subjective well-being. Despite its popularity within and outside of academia, much more

needs to be researched before we can understand its properties and sociological utility.

This dissertation explores the potential location of grit within various sociological

discourses, including literature on agency, stratification, and perceived meritocracy. In

addition, I explore the relationship between social status, subjective agency, the social

valuation of grit, and grit cross-culturally to place grit within proper cultural and

structural contexts. In Chapter 2, I propose the psychological notion of grit as a

potentially useful variable in sociological analysis and explore its potential for

contributing to addressing sociological concerns including human agency and

stratification. Grit could work as a “behavioral engine” transforming subjective beliefs

about agency (e.g., sense of control) to agentic practices that potentially produce better

life outcomes.

In Chapter 3, using new cross-cultural data collected from South Korea and the

United States, I test the current measure of grit, the Grit-S scale, that is developed and

predominantly tested in the United States, in two different countries, South Korea and the

United States. I find in both countries grit is better understood as the concept consisting

of two separate dimensions, perseverance and passion, rather than a global concept. In

addition, I find the perseverance facet of grit, but not the passion facet, shows the

iv
distinctive utility in explaining subjective well-being beyond subjective agency (i.e.,

sense of control) in both countries.

In Chapter 4, I analyze novel cross-cultural data collected from four nations

(France, South Korea, Turkey and the United States) and find an indirect linkage between

a person’s socioeconomic status and the level of grit through positive associations with

the sense of control. That is, people with a higher socioeconomic status tend to hold

stronger beliefs about one’s agency, and those who are strong believers in one’s control

over life outcomes, in turn, are more likely to develop grit in these four countries.

In Chapter 5, using the same cross-cultural data used in Chapter 3, I investigate

the social valuation of grit and whether and how the valuation of grit is associated with

individual development of grit in South Korea and the United States. In both countries,

grit is valued as a desirable virtue that leads to success in life. However, there is within-

society variance: people from lower social statuses tend to value grit as a virtue that leads

to success more than those from higher statuses in both country samples. In addition, I

find people with a higher sense of control are more likely to value grit as a virtue, and

valuing grit is positively associated with the individual development of perseverance in

both countries.

v
 PUBLIC ABSTRACT

Grit, comprising of perseverance and passion towards long-term goals, has been

suggested as a strong predictor of academic and professional success. As previous

psychologically oriented studies show less interest in placing grit in structural and

cultural contexts, many questions are left unanswered. First, I find that the concept and

measurement of grit, predominantly studied in the U.S., are also applicable to South

Korea, an example of a collectivistic culture. Grit is better understood as two separate

dimensions, perseverance and passion, rather than as a global concept in both countries. I

also find having grit (specifically perseverance) benefits one’s subjective well-being in

both countries. Second, using data collected from France, South Korea, Turkey and the

U.S., I find an individual’s socioeconomic status is indirectly tied to one’s level of grit,

via subjective beliefs about one’s agency over life outcomes (i.e., sense of control). That

is, people from higher social statuses tend to show stronger beliefs in one’s control over

life outcomes, and, in turn, report a higher level of grit. Third, I find grit is highly valued

as a desirable virtue leading to success in life in South Korea and the U.S., yet there is

within-culture variance: those from lower social statuses are more likely to value grit as a

virtue more than those from higher social statuses. My findings put a caveat on popular

discourse about grit that assumes grit is a class-free resource (i.e., not being related to

one’s structural locations and opportunities) and dismisses potential influences of

structural and cultural factors. Grit is a useful psychological construct that maintains or

solidifies existing stratification across cultures.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2. EXPLORING GRIT AS A SOCIOLOGICAL VARIABLE....................... 7
2.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 7
2.2. What is Grit? ............................................................................................................ 8
2.3. Viewing Grit from a Sociological Standpoint: What is Missing? ......................... 14
CHAPTER 3. VALIDATION OF THE GRIT SCALE.................................................... 29
3.1. Background ............................................................................................................ 29
3.2. Methods.................................................................................................................. 33
3.3. Analysis Plan ......................................................................................................... 37
3.4. Study 1: Measurement Tests of the Grit-S Scale ................................................... 38
3.5. Study 2: Testing the Construct Validity of the Grit Measures............................... 42
3.6. Discussion .............................................................................................................. 45
CHAPTER 4. A CROSS-CULTURAL EXAMINATION OF SOCIAL
STRATIFICATION OF GRIT ......................................................................................... 48
4.1. Background ............................................................................................................ 48
4.2. Linking Grit to Social Stratification ...................................................................... 50
4.3. Understanding Cultural Contexts of Grit ............................................................... 54
4.4. Methods.................................................................................................................. 56
4.5. Results .................................................................................................................... 61
4.6. Discussion .............................................................................................................. 66
CHAPTER 5. THE SOCIAL VALUATION OF GRIT ................................................... 70
5.1. Background ............................................................................................................ 70
5.2. Research Questions and Analysis Plan .................................................................. 77
5.3. Methods.................................................................................................................. 81
5.4. Results .................................................................................................................... 83
5.5. Discussion .............................................................................................................. 86
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................... 90
APPENDIX A. TABLES AND FIGURES .................................................................... 101
APPENDIX B. KEY SURVEY QUESTIONS ............................................................... 117
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 118

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Demographic Statistics ..................................................................................... 101

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach’s Alphas of Key Variables ...................... 102

Table 3. Fit Indices of the Hypothesized Models of Grit ............................................... 103

Table 4. Goodness-of-fit Indexes in the MGCFA .......................................................... 104

Table 5. Correlations between Grit-S, Perseverance, Consistency, Sense of Control,

Conscientiousness and Subjective Well-being ............................................................... 105

Table 6. Hierarchical Regressions of Subjective Well-being ......................................... 106

Table 7. Descriptive Statistics......................................................................................... 107

Table 8. Valuing Autonomy ........................................................................................... 108

Table 9. Descriptive Statistics of Sense of Control and Grit .......................................... 109

Table 10. Standardized Path Coefficients ....................................................................... 110

Table 11. Standardized Direct, Indirect and Total Effects of Subjective Class on Grit . 111

Table 12. Descriptive Statistics....................................................................................... 112

Table 13. Regression of the Valuation of Grit on Social Structural Positions, Sense of
Control and Control Variables ........................................................................................ 113

Table 14. Regressions of Perseverance and Consistency on the Valuation of Grit,

Sense of Control and Control Variables ......................................................................... 114

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. A Hypothetical Path Diagram ......................................................................... 115

Figure 2. Perceived Importance of Various Factors for Getting Ahead in Life ............. 116

ix
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION1

Grit, the disposition of pursuing effort and interest over the course of years, has

been spotlighted as one of the non-cognitive, socio-emotional skills that is predictive of

academic achievement. Academics and the popular media have recently reflected great

interest in developing children’s grit, including a movement to incorporate grit and other

non-cognitive skills into metrics beginning in California school districts and further

spreading nationwide, even worldwide. The National Assessment of Educational

Progress in the United States (so-called Nation’s Report Card) and PISA, a well-known

international test, also include measures for socio-emotional skills in their tests (Strauss

2015; Zernike 2016). Given the scholarly and public attention and debate about grit, it is

timely to investigate grit beyond its psychological anchoring to further understand what it

is, where it comes from, and why it matters. As grit research has just recently burgeoned,

many questions are left unexamined within a sociological context.

I argue that sociology should step into the discussion about grit for three reasons.

First, grit, as a measurable skill, has a great deal to add to a sociological understanding of

status attainment, a potential link between internalized structural advantage (e.g.,

Featherman and Hauser 1978; Sewell, Hauser and Wolf 1969) and expectations and

aspirations predicting later life outcomes (Morgan 2005; Vaisey 2010). Despite their

clear stance of viewing grit as an essential skill to improve academic performance, grit

1
Some parts of this introduction were published in Sociology Compass and the edited book titled, Agency
at Work: An Agentic Perspective on Professional Learning and Development. Detailed bibliography
information is as follows:
Kwon, Hye Won. 2017. “The Sociology of Grit: Exploring Grit as a Sociological Variable and its Potential
Role in Social Stratification.” Sociology Compass 11(12):1-13.
Kwon, Hye Won. “Expanding the Notion of Agency: Introducing Grit as an Additional Facet of Agency.”
In Goller, Michael and Susanna Paloniemi (Eds.). 2017. Agency at Work: An Agentic Perspective on
Professional Learning and Development. Cham: Springer.

1
researchers have been less clear about where grit comes from. Grit, potentially, is a

mechanism explaining why some people with various levels of intelligence, aspiration, or

structural advantage persevere, while others are less able to stick with advantageous life

course pathways. One obstacle to grit’s adoption within sociology, however, is the

tendency for it to be treated as a locally learned skill rather than as linked to structural

and cultural positions. The sociological approach, therefore, allows us to illuminate the

role of social structure in shaping one’s development of gritty inclination that

psychologically oriented studies fail to capture.

Second, grit helps us understand how subjective beliefs of agency are exercised to

produce better life outcomes. This dissertation proposes bringing grit into sociological

discussion of agency, one of the core tenets of life course research (Shanahan and

Macmillan 2008). Existing studies on agency mainly focus on subjective beliefs about

agency: subjective beliefs about agency play a crucial role in one’s life course, for

example, sometimes in a form of a self-fulfilling prophecy (Hitlin and Elder 2007).

However, unlike agency’s subjective dimensions that provide “measurable sociological

constructs” (Hitlin and Elder 2007:186), the actual agentic capacity – beyond beliefs

about that capacity -- remains a challenge to agency researchers. The utility of agency

becomes meaningful when it is actually ‘exercised.’ Potentially the behavioral dimension

of agency, anchored in a sense of grit, can motivate the theoretical and empirical moves

necessary to get “from cognition to action” (Mische 2009:702). This behavioral

dimension of ‘exerting’ power, the behavioral component of agency, deserves theoretical

and empirical scrutiny. Grit, which has largely been studied in psychology and education

2
fields, may be one measure for a behavioral component of agency that answers how

agency is really exerted, expanding sociological understanding of agency.

Third, the culture that individuals are embedded in should be also taken into

account to better understand whether grit is valued and useful across societies. Prior

studies in cross-cultural psychology has informed us that the assumptions taken for

granted by Western-centered researchers may not be held in other cultures and thus

subject to an empirical test (Heine and Norenzayan 2006; Matsumoto and Yoo 2006).

However, since previous grit research has been predominantly placed in the American

context we are unaware whether the concept of grit can be applied to other cultures

beyond the United States. For example, the social meaning of grit is still left unexamined:

do people in other cultures also link success to grit as we do in the United States?

Considering the influence of culture, the landscape of agency and its linkage to social

stratification might plausibly differ in other countries.

This dissertation proposes a cross-cultural examination of how grit and the

valuation of grit are closely tied to one’s social stratification positions. This dissertation

has four major goals. First, I explore the utility of grit as a sociological variable by

demonstrating how this psychological concept can be linked to existing agency literature,

stratification research, and cross-cultural literature. Chapter 2, in particular, provides

theoretical background for bringing grit into sociological discourse by exploring social

consequences and potential antecedents of grit. I argue that grit captures an important,

noncognitive, underdeveloped aspect of agency not included in life-course or

stratification studies, suggesting incorporating grit into sociological understanding of

individual-level aspects of stratification.

3
 Second, in Chapter 3, I test the validity of the current measure of grit (the Grit-S

scale; Duckworth and Quinn 2009) and find that the concept of grit is applicable to South

Korea, an emblematic country that is known to be more collectivistic than the United

States, using novel cross-cultural data I collected from South Korea and the United

States. Results show grit is better understood as a construct consisting of two separate

dimensions, perseverance of effort and consistency of interest, rather than as a global

construct, in both countries. I also test the construct validity of grit measures and find that

the perseverance dimension of grit explains unique variance in one’s subjective well-

being above and beyond other psychological resources such as the sense of control and

conscientiousness in the United States. In South Korea, the perseverance dimension of

grit contributes to explaining unique variance in subjective well-being controlling for the

sense of control, but the distinctive utility of the grit dimensions beyond

conscientiousness is not found.

Third, I suggest the potential location of grit in social stratification research,

introducing grit as another example of individual psychological functioning that

reproduces social stratification across cultures. Using cross-cultural survey data collected

from France, South Korea, Turkey and the United States, Chapter 4 demonstrates that grit

is indirectly tied to a person’s socioeconomic status via the traditional measure of

subjective agency (i.e., sense of control). This association between one’s socioeconomic

status, the sense of control, and grit is found in four country samples, and the cultural

consistency of this association adds more power to the utility of grit as a potentially

useful sociological variable that could address questions regarding social stratification

and human agency in different countries.

4
 Fourth, I examine the social valuation of grit in South Korea and the United

States, as an attempt to provide a cultural background for the sociological utility of grit

by exploring how the ideal of grit is valued in these different cultures often supposed to

be at two ends of psychology’s ubiquitous Individualism-Collectivism spectrum. In

Chapter 5, I use the same novel cross-cultural data used in Chapter 3 to examine the

social valuation of grit, and whether and how the valuation of grit is associated with

individuals’ social structural locations in South Korea and the United States. I argue

cultural ideologies regarding American Dream and neoliberalistic ideologies that

emphasize independence and meritocracy have offered cultural foundation of acclaiming

the conception of grit, particularly in the United States. Despite purported cultural

differences between individualism vs. collectivism on which previous cross-cultural

research has relied for long, valorizing grit may not be uniquely American: in South

Korea, grit can be also valued as a desirable virtue because diligence and hard work are

highly valued in Confucian cultures. Supporting my argument, I find both Americans and

Koreans value grit as a virtue that leads to success in life. However, how much people

value grit as a virtue is linked to a person’s social structural position: findings show that

people from less advantaged social statuses tend to perceive grit as key to success more

than those who are from more advantaged statuses in both samples. In addition, the

amount that respondents value grit as a virtue is positively associated with the individual

development of perseverance as a facet of grit in both country samples.

By bridging sociological and cross-cultural approaches to grit as a behavioral

facet of agency, this dissertation attempts to ascertain whether grit is empirically useful

for sociological questions (in Chapters 3, 4 and 5), after setting out how it theoretically

5
addresses core issues of both agency and stratification (in Chapter 2). Given the enhanced

importance of grit on educational policies across countries, investigating potential

antecedents of grit and its utility across cultures contributes to a more integrative

understanding of the mechanisms by which socioeconomic factors determine grit in

different cultural systems.

6
 CHAPTER 2. EXPLORING GRIT AS A SOCIOLOGICAL VARIABLE2

2.1. Introduction

This chapter suggests that sociology should be involved with discussion and

research about grit; sociology could shed light on the social structural forces linked to the

development of grit that psychologically oriented studies fail to locate (see Kundu and

Noguera 2014 and Kundu 2016 for recent sociological attempts to place grit in a social

context). Many previous studies on expectations and aspirations capture how agency

benefits individuals in status attainment (Sewell, Haller and Portes 1969; Sewell, Haller

and Ohlendorf 1970). Our understanding about how this subjective belief about agency

translates into volitional action is still incomplete, however. Grit offers a potentially

useful, established, concept and measure for better understanding the link between

agency and status attainment.

This chapter suggests incorporating grit into sociological understanding of

individual-level aspects of stratification, moving beyond its current conception anchored

fully in psychology, to further understand what it is, where it comes from, and why it is

useful sociologically. I situate grit within a stratification framework to explore how it

addresses core sociological questions by (a) discussing what grit is and how it can be tied

to sociological understanding of agency, a core concept in life course research, and (b)

briefly reviewing previous literatures that help us explore grit as an independent variable

(consequences of grit) and a dependent variable (potential antecedents of grit),

highlighting grit’s potential role in social stratification. Grit captures an important, non-

2
An earlier version of this chapter was published in Sociology Compass (Kwon, Hye Won. 2017. “The
Sociology of Grit: Exploring Grit as a Sociological Variable and its Potential Role in Social Stratification.”
Sociology Compass 11(12):1-13).

7
cognitive aspect of agency that has not been developed or included in life course or

stratification studies.

2.2. What is Grit?

2.2.1. Conceptualization of Grit

Duckworth and her colleagues conducted a series of quantitative and qualitative

projects and revealed that high-achieving individuals in various fields commonly possess

a special trait they term “grit” (Duckworth et al. 2007). Grit is defined as a combination

of two lower-order facets: perseverance and passion for long-term goals (Duckworth

2016; Duckworth et al. 2007). A gritty person works strenuously (perseverance of effort)

to achieve the goals that she desires for years and keeps being passionate about it

(consistency of interest). Grit has been proposed as a highly predictive indicator of

achievement in psychology, gaining popularity in the field of education as well (Bowman

et al. 2015; Duckworth et al. 2007; Eskreis-Winkler et al. 2014; Hochanadel and

Finamore 2015; Strayhorn 2014). Grit is vital to success, Duckworth and her colleagues

argued, because it is linked to individual’s effortful practice: Duckworth et al. (2011)

shed light on the mediating role of deliberate practice in the association between grit and

performance in the National Spelling Bee, suggesting grit encourages individuals to

endure deliberate practice which in turn helps them achieve better outcomes than less

gritty counterparts. The claim that this psychological trait, grit, is teachable (Duckworth

2016) has invited many educators and psychologists to participate in the discussion about

grit and designing interventions to grow grit, particularly that of students from high-

8
poverty areas who experience a lack of social support and critical resources (Shechtman

et al. 2013).

2.2.2. Current Measurement of Grit and Scholarly Doubts

Grit is measured by the Grit scales (Duckworth et al. 2007; Duckworth and Quinn

2009), a self-report, subjective measurement technique where respondents are asked to

indicate how similar they are to the person described in the statements. Duckworth et al.

(2007) initially proposed the 12-item Grit Scale (Grit-O) but later Duckworth and Quinn

(2009) shortened their original scale to the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S) with 8 items based

on each item’s predictive validity across different samples; combined, these two papers

have been cited over 3500 times on Google Scholar. Duckworth and Quinn (2009)

demonstrated that Grit-S is psychometrically stronger than the original scale. Reflecting

its conceptual structure, this grit measure contains two lower-order dimensions,

perseverance of effort and consistency of interest. Items like “Setbacks don’t discourage

me” and “I finish whatever I begin” are included to measure perseverance. For

consistency of interest, items like “I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different

one” and “I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later

lost interest” are included (see Appendix B for the full question set). Scores for two

components are averaged, with perseverance items reverse coded so that a higher score

indicates a higher level of grit.

Along with growing enthusiasm for the concept of grit, there are also growing

doubts about its utility raised by scholars and educators. Scholarly doubt puts the

construct validity of grit in question. A meta-analysis by Credé, Tynan and Harms (2017)

9
provides three major critiques about the current grit measure. First, the perseverance facet

of grit offers a much better predictive power of performance than the consistency facet or

overall grit as a higher-order construct, which is inconsistent with findings of Duckworth

and Quinn (2009) who found a combined measure is more predictive of performance than

each factor alone. 3 Second, grit’s empirical relations with academic performance and

retention are “only modest.” Third, the high correlation between grit and relevant

psychological concepts (i.e., conscientiousness and self-control) raises doubts about the

distinct utility of grit: the current measure of grit may be “simply a repackaging of

conscientiousness or one of the facets of conscientiousness” (Credé, Tynan and Harms

2016:11).

Duckworth responded to these critiques in a magazine article (Kamenetz 2016)

where she acknowledged that the independent effect of grit on academic achievement is

“small-to-medium,” as she described in her original article (Duckworth et al. 2007), even

though she seemed to emphasize grit as a “powerful, even unique factor” (Kamenetz

2016) in her famous TED talk. She also acknowledged that grit is very close to

conscientiousness, but grit researchers including Duckworth herself have long

endeavored to build an argument that grit is theoretically distinct from conscientiousness

because grit entails a strong passion towards a long-term goal, which is not found in the

concept or measure of conscientiousness (Datu, Valdez and King 2016a) (for further

discussion about the relationship between grit and conscientiousness, see Section

2.3.2.1).

3
For this reason, Credé, Tynan and Harms (2016) claimed that, to maximize its utility, it is probably better
to treat the perseverance facet as a construct distinct from consistency facet or the overall grit construct.

10
 Another question is about the structure of grit measure. The majority of grit

researchers including Duckworth and her colleagues (e.g., Duckworth et al. 2007;

Duckworth and Quinn 2009) argue for a higher-order structure of grit that consists of two

lower-order dimensions of girt, perseverance of effort and consistency of interest, and use

an overall grit score by averaging all grit items. However, some researchers (e.g., Datu,

Valdez and King 2016a) have reported that the two-structure model of grit (without a

higher-order latent concept of grit) has better fit to their samples (see Section 3.1 for

more detailed discussion).

Given its potential policy-related impact on education in the United States and

other countries, there is a critical need to more fully flesh out the conceptual validity and

utility of grit. In Chapter 3, I examine the validity and distinctive utility of the grit

concept in two different countries, the United States and South Korea. Since previous grit

research has been concentrated in a single nation, especially the United States, we do not

know if current measurement of the grit concept is also valid in other cultures. Using new

cross-cultural data collected from the United States and South Korea, I test which

structure of grit model fits better to data, whether people in two distinct cultures interpret

and respond to the existing grit measure in the same way or not, and whether grit has a

distinctive utility in predicting subjective well-being, as one example of life outcome,

beyond other psychological concepts such as sense of control and conscientiousness (see

Chapter 3). As such, I develop an argument about grit’s utility for stratification and life

course studies.

11
2.2.3. A Potential Location of Grit within Sociological Discourse

From a sociological perspective, grit taps into a behavioral facet of human agency

that has long been omitted in the agency literature despite its essential role in making the

move from “cognition to action” (Mische 2009:702). Grit could work as a “behavioral

engine” transforming subjective beliefs about agency to actual practices that exert agency

in one’s life course (see Kwon 2017 for further discussion). Agency researchers have

long endeavored to clarify what agency is (see Emirbayer and Mische 1998; Hitlin and

Long 2009 for reviews). Agency has mostly been linked with subjective beliefs about

personal agentic capacities (e.g., personal control), with some recent empirical attempts

to incorporate future expectations into the discussion and measurement of agency (e.g.,

Hitlin and Johnson 2015).

As an example, planful competence (Clausen 1993; Clausen 1991) captures a

future-oriented facet of agency (Hitlin and Kwon 2016; Kwon 2017) and perhaps

elements of grit. Planful competence refers to an individual’s capacity to look forward by

making a future plan and sticking to it (Clausen 1993; Shanahan, Hofer and Miech 2003).

Researchers have documented evidence that individuals who are equipped with planful

competence in their adolecent years are more likely to achieve better occupational

outcomes in their adult years (Clausen 1991), earn higher income gains and experience

less fluctuations in their status (Shanahan, Hofer and Miech 2003). Shanahan, Hofer and

Miech (2003) also point out that planful competence can benefit those who already have

advantaged social positions, suggesting the importance of this psycological resource in

understanding sustained social stratification across generations.

12
 However, agency researchers’ endeavors still fail to capture a behavioral engine

that converts subjective beliefs into agentic action, which is pivotal in the exercise of

agency. They assume that the subjective beliefs translate into action, but a century of

social psychology teaches us that is not an obvious relationship, an issue that is at the root

of current debates in the sociology of culture, as well (e.g., Vaisey 2009). For this reason,

our understanding about how this agency (mostly in a very subjective form) is translated

into human action is still inconclusive. For example, a person who is a stronger believer

in her control over life outcomes (i.e., subjective beliefs about agency) may develop

behavioral inclinations of putting great effort and passion into her valued life projects

(i.e., grit as a behavioral engine of agency). However, the opposite is potentially true as

well, somebody who has a great sense of control may have poor skills or motivation to

pursue long-term goals. A classic example of this off-diagonal case is found in the

popular fable, the Tortoise and the Hare: the Hare does have a higher sense of mastery in

the race, but he sleeps a lot and does not keep working on his project (the race), thereby

losing the race in the end. Grit may operate as an important psychological skill which

allows us to begin to translate traditional notions of individual beliefs – the gold standard

for life course research on individual success – into concrete actions and perseverance

that contributes to the accomplishment of life goals. I discuss the relationship with this

measure and grit more, below.

While the theoretical construct and the empirical measurement of grit have been

developed recently by a group of psychologists including Duckworth, its content is

possibly familiar to sociologists. Grit has potential for contributing to both agency and

social stratification literatures in sociology. In the next section, I will address how grit

13
can be examined as a sociological variable by reviewing its linkages to major

sociological concerns.

2.3. Viewing Grit from a Sociological Standpoint: What is Missing?

Previous grit literature, heavily rooted in psychology, has less been interested in

exploring potential social structural factors that are closely linked to its development and

how grit operates in different cultures, thus limiting its sociological utility. In a recent

endeavor to bring grit to sociological understanding, Kundu (2017) claims that previous

grit research in psychology fails to incorporate the structural conditions and students’

cultures that are significant to understand academic achievement, especially those from

low-income households. While grit researchers have been heavily focused on

demonstrating the potential predictive power of grit on life outcomes such as academic

and occupational performances, they appear less interested in providing a clear

explanation about where grit comes from, or broadly, the potential structural, cultural,

and other psychological factors that are closely connected with one’s gritty disposition.

However, the fact that there is variance in grit among individuals implies that grit is not

equally distributed within a population, or that it is a potential resource that operates

differently for people located in different places within a society’s stratification system.

In the following two sections, I seek to provide a useful sociological perspective on grit,

more fully placing grit in proper structural and cultural contexts.

14
2.3.1. Why Grit Matters: Social Consequences of Grit

Previous empirical studies of grit have predominantly focused on demonstrating

the relationship between grit and high achievement in many different domains ranging

from educational to professional fields, implicitly suggesting the linkage between grit and

social stratification. However, such ideas have not explicitly filtered into sociological

theorizing. In addition to grit’s role in achievement, researchers are also interested in its

influence on various well-being indicators. In this section, I will review these three major

domains that grit researchers have explored, particularly shedding light on grit’s potential

role in status attainment.

2.3.1.1. Academic Achievement

Academic success has been suggested as a major consequence of developing grit,

drawing great attention from parents and the general public. Researchers have

documented that grittier children have a higher retention rate at the final ranking in the

National Spelling Bee (Duckworth et al. 2011) and grittier students in the Chicago public

schools were more likely to graduate (Eskreis-Winkler et al. 2014). The advantage of

having grit is also found in the context of higher education. A positive association

between grit and GPA is found for students at Ivy League schools (Duckworth et al.

2007) and for Black males at a predominantly White college (Strayhorn 2014). Bowman

et al. (2015) examined what specific collegiate outcomes are linked to two

subcomponents of grit and found perseverance of effort is positively associated with

higher levels of GPA, college satisfaction, sense of belonging and intentions to persist,

15
whereas consistency of interest is negatively linked to intent to change majors and

careers.

Contrary to these findings, some researchers were unable to find such strong

associations between grit and academic achievements for private high school students in

the United States (Ivcevic and Brackett 2014) and 16-years olds in the U.K. (Rimfeld et

al. 2016), controlling for grit’s psychological correlates such as conscientiousness, a core

personality trait. For example, Ivcevic and Brackett (2014) have found grit failed to show

an independent effect on school outcomes, beyond the effects of conscientiousness. This

set of mixed findings calls for further investigation of the distinctive utility of grit in

academic achievement, above and beyond traditional psychological constructs.

2.3.1.2. Professional Achievement

Researchers have illustrated that professional achievement is another consequence

of having grit, suggesting another potential linkage between grit and social stratification.

Grit is negatively associated with dropout and turnover performance of military academy

cadets (Duckworth et al. 2007) and sales (Eskreis-Winkler et al. 2014), respectively,

while positively associated with work engagement of police detectives (Eskreis-Winkler,

Shulman and Duckworth 2014) and teacher performance and retention in under-resourced

public schools (Duckworth, Quinn and Seligman 2009; Robertson-Kraft and Duckworth

2014). In addition, using online data collected from working adults in Japan, Suzuki et al.

(2015) found that Japanese workers higher in grit were more likely to engage with their

work than less gritty Japanese workers, controlling for sociodemographic factors,

orientations to happiness, Big Five personality traits and self-control.

16
 Empirical findings from lab experiments in Lucas et al. (2015) provide hints at

how and why gritty individuals accomplish success more than others in various

professional domains: people high in grit tend to invest more effort and keep working on

the tasks. The effect of grit on work engagement is more pronounced when it is a losing

battle (Lucas et al. 2015). In this sense, grit may be the most useful psychological

resource that empowers individuals especially when the task is difficult and challenging,

as Credé, Tynan and Harms (2016) suspected.

These findings indicate that grit is an important psychological resource that

enables a person to draw smoother, advantageous life trajectories (via better educational

and occupational achievement) and accomplish higher status outcomes in the long run.

For instance, by investing more effort, engaging more in work, and not easily giving up

on the tasks of which they are in charge, gritty people may place themselves in a more

advantageous position for getting better professional achievements (e.g., higher chances

of advancement to higher-level jobs, higher salaries, better job security, better fringe

benefits, more training opportunities, etc.) than others. This is distinct from the notion of

personal control, so often viewed sociologically as the link between social origin and

status attainment. Personal control, as discussed above, is a cognitive belief that is likely

correlated with grit, but much less behaviorally relevant.

In this sense, grit can be potentially understood as another beneficial

psychological skill for obtaining advantaged stratification positions. Several studies show

that high and middle class parents not only transmit cultural tastes but also transmit

dispositions, knowledge, competencies, and skills which are beneficial to their children in

the society, and formal educational institutions also contribute to this mechanism of class

17
reproduction (Calarco 2011; Lareau 2002). Along with Bourdieu’s claim (1984) that

upper-class children learn knowledge, skills, and attitudes which are ‘highly valued’ in

the society, grit can be one of the critical psychological functioning that is relatively

unexamined from the perspective of social stratification (see Section 2.3.2.2 and Chapter

4 for further discussion).

2.3.1.3. Psychological Well-being

Grit appears to be strongly associated with one’s objective achievement, though

some scholars are skeptical. Other researchers found evidence that grit is also associated

positively with one’s subjective well-being (Salles, Cohen and Mueller 2014; Singh and

Jha 2008; Vainio and Daukantaitė 2016) and negatively with work-related stress (Meriac,

Slifka and LaBat 2015). In addition, grit even buffers the effect of negative life events on

suicidal ideation (Blalock, Young and Kleiman 2015). For example, Singh and Jha’s

study (2008) found a positive association of grit with happiness, life satisfaction, and

positive affect but a negative association with negative affect. Grit is also beneficial for

physical health: Reed, Pritschet and Cutton (2013) found grit predicts high and moderate

intensity exercise behavior, independent of BFI conscientiousness.

Grit is particularly useful to handle burnout and stress that individuals get from

their professional life. Salles, Cohen and Mueller (2014) showed that grit is predictive of

psychological well-being of medical residents specializing in general surgery. Residents

who are higher in grit tend to have lower levels of burnout and higher levels of

psychological well-being than those lower in grit. Given that residents’ well-being is a

very important factor in their success in the tough training program, grit helps residents to

18
persevere and achieve goals by offering better psychological health. Meriac, Slifka and

LaBat (2015) also provide evidence that ties grit to well-being, showing that grittier

workers tend to show less work-related stress than their less gritty counterparts. The

inclination to keep moving forward despite setbacks (i.e., grit) may imply the inner

strength of individuals that allows them to interpret the situation differently or use

different coping skills when facing with challenging situations (Meriac, Slifka and LaBat

2015). For example, gritty people may think failures or adversities are part of business to

achieve whatever they set their minds to or part of the learning process to complete the

valued tasks (e.g., growth mindset in Dweck 2006). This is also in line with what Lucas

et al. (2015) found: gritty individuals tend to show more positive emotions and

expectations toward the task, suggesting gritty individuals may have different

perspectives toward situations around them (see Motivational Orientations in Section

2.3.2.1 for further discussion).

In Chapter 3, as part of the test to investigate the utility of grit in predicting life

outcomes, I examine whether having a higher level of grit is linked to reporting a higher

level of subjective well-being, measured by subjective scales of life satisfaction and

happiness, using new cross-cultural survey data on grit collected from the United States

and South Korea. I investigate whether there is a positive association between grit and

subjective well-being in two country samples, and whether this relationship remains

significant even after controlling for other traditional subjective measures (e.g., personal

sense of control and conscientiousness) that have well-established linkages to subjective

well-being.

19
2.3.2. Where Grit Comes From: Potential Antecedents of Grit

Grit researchers – almost all within psychology – have shown less interest in

providing a clear explanation about how grit develops. Despite an almost exclusive focus

on grit as a predictor of success (grit as an independent variable), we can find some clues

to investigate the predictors of grit within the literature, pointing toward a more socially

embedded understanding of the concept. In this section, I will focus on three major

domains that are plausibly connected with grit’s socially patterned development:

psychological correlates, social structural positions and cultural influences.

2.3.2.1. Psychological Correlates

Motivational Orientations. As mentioned previously, how a person sees

themselves, the world, and the relationship between the two is closely tied to grit. Von

Culin, Tsukayama and Duckworth (2014) studied the impact of motivational orientations

on grit. People have different motivational dispositions and approaches to pursue

happiness: some may seek pleasure, others may pursue meaning in their lives, and some

others may be interested more in engagement and full mastery in their lives. The authors

found that Americans who seek engagement or meaning show a higher level of grit while

people who seek pleasure tend to be lacking grit. The authors speculate that different

motivations may lead different levels of grit, thereby producing different achievement

outcomes. Findings from a recent study conducted by Hill, Burrow and Bronk (2016) are

also in line with these findings, suggesting that possessing a life direction (committing to

a purpose) is predictive of grit among college students. Thus, grit as established seems

20
not to be inborn but something that can be developed and motivated by one’s beliefs

about life goals.

Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness, a personality trait of being orderly,

dependable and responsible (John and Srivastava 1999), largely studied in psychology

but not used much in sociology, has been suggested as the most consistent predictor for

academic achievement (Poropat 2009). It has been documented as one of the close

theoretical relatives of grit by many researchers. In a recent meta-analysis, Credé, Tynan

and Harms (2016) found conscientiousness was very strongly correlated with the grit

scale and suggested grit may be redundant with conscientiousness or “one of the facets of

conscientiousness” (Credé, Tynan and Harms 2016:11). Their similarity in part stems

from some resemblance between their measures. For example, the Big Five Inventory

(BFI) that is widely used as a traditional personality questionnaire (John and Srivastava

1999) includes statements that are close to current grit measures: statements like “Tends

to be lazy (reverse coded)” and “Perseveres until the task is finished” overlap with grit’s

persistent of effort measures while “Is easily distracted (reverse coded)” slightly overlaps

with grit’s consistency of interest measure (see Appendix B for the question items).

Duckworth and her colleagues pointed out, however, that theoretically and

methodologically grit taps into the “long-term stamina” rather than a short-term focus

captured in the literature on conscientiousness (Duckworth et al. 2007). In addition, grit

has a unique, significant effect on life outcomes beyond personality traits including

conscientiousness (Duckworth and Eskreis-Winkler 2013; Duckworth et al. 2007;

Duckworth and Quinn 2009).

21
 In addition, while conscientiousness as a personality trait is considered relatively

stable, enduring (however, see Roberts 2009 for a review about this assumption), grit

researchers have argued that we could teach grit to children, treating grit as a relatively

malleable trait (Shechtman et al. 2013). However, other studies show that grit adds little

to the prediction of academic achievement beyond well-established personality traits,

especially conscientiousness (Credé, Tynan and Harms 2016; Ivcevic and Brackett 2014;

Rimfeld et al. 2016), raising doubts about the unique effect of grit on academic

performance. Given these mixed findings about the relationship between the two,

researchers suggest including conscientiousness in the analysis to clarify a distinctive

position of grit using diverse population samples (Ion, Mindu and Gorbănescu 2017).

Thus, I will examine the distinctive utility of grit in explaining variance in a person’s

subjective well-being beyond conscientiousness, using two country samples (see Study 2

in Chapter 3).

Self-control. Self-control is another psychological correlate that is closely related

to grit. Self-control refers to an ability to regulate one’s behavior against temptations or

impulses to achieve a specific goal, and has been documented as an important predictor

of adult life outcomes such as wealth, health, and criminal convictions (see Moffitt et al.

2011 for an overview). Duckworth and her colleagues have argued that self-control is

highly correlated with grit, but not identical (Duckworth et al. 2007; Duckworth and

Gross 2014). Duckworth and Gross (2014) articulated the difference between the two in a

hierarchical goal framework. While self-control is related with self-regualtion in a

conflict-situation between two action-related impulses, where one impulse is valuable in

that moment while the other serves a “more enduringly valued” goal, grit is more about

22
self-regualtion to pursue a “dominant superordinate goal” over a long time frame, even

years (Duckworth and Gross 2014:3-4). A person can show a higher level of resistance to

immediate temptations such as reviewing class materials rather than watching TV or

surfing the Internet (i.e., high self-control), but shift a longer-term goal frequnetly (i.e.,

low grit). Having both psychological resources certainly leads to better life outcomes

compared to having either alone or having none of them (Duckworth and Gross 2014).

Despite this endeavor that Duckworth and her colleagues have made to establish a

theoretical differentiation between the two, there are mixed findings regarding the

distinctive utility of grit over self-control in predicting outcome variables: some grit

researchers have found grit’s unique predictive role in explaining academic performance

(Li et al. 2016), while some others found very strong correlations between grit and self-

control and no incremental predictability of grit over traits including self-control and self-

regulation (Credé, Tynan and Harms 2016; Muenks et al. 2016).

Personal Sense of Control. Another potential psychological resource that may be

closely tied to the development of grit is the sense of personal control. The sense of

control is a learned expectation that a person is responsible for the successes or failures in

her life (Lewis, Ross and Mirowsky 1999; Mirowsky 1995; Mirowsky and Ross 1991;

Ross and Mirowsky 2013), demonstrated as a strong predictor of better educational and

professional outcomes (Gifford, Briceno-Perriott and Mianzo 2006; Wang et al. 1999;

You, Hong and Ho 2011). The sense of control is a set of beliefs, that are likely related to

actual self-control, discussed in the previous section, but are theoretically and empirically

distinguishable. Individuals who have a higher sense of control feel responsible about

their successes and failures and do not attribute those outcomes to external factors such as

23
luck or fate. As Duckworth et al. (2007) suspected, how people think about their power

over their own life outcomes may shape one’s gritty inclination. This leads to the

intuition that the sense of control motivates individuals to develop a gritty disposition and

guides concrete behavior by putting more and consistent effort toward desired outcomes

(see Kwon 2017 for further discussion). This, eventually, contributes to achievement. If a

person believes she is the one who authors her life path she will be more likely to put

much more effort forth to achieve her long-term life goals. In contrast, if she thinks that

everything is determined by luck or fate, she will be less likely to put forth such effort

with the passion to pursue certain goals for years. For this reason, an individual with a

lower sense of control is more likely to cease further investment in goals when facing

adversities. Yet, the linkage between the sense of control and grit, despite the suspicion

by Duckworth and her colleagues (Duckworth et al. 2007), has not yet been empirically

examined. Filling the gap in previous literature, I will examine the relationship between

the sense of control and grit by showing distinctive utility of grit beyond the sense of

control (Chapter 3) and demonstrating the mediating role of the sense of control in the

relationship between one’s socioeconomic status and grit (Chapter 4).

2.3.2.2. Social Stratification

Grit, at face value, may seem unrelated to the structural positions where

individuals are located. In many previous studies on grit, social structural positions as

potential antecedents of grit are often omitted in discussion or only included as controls.

While grit is linked with educational attainment (as described in Section 2.3.1.1), the

linkage between grit and education has been mostly interpreted in one direction: that is,

24
disposition to pursue long-term goals enables individuals to continue education.

However, education may also enable people to learn skills useful for making better

achievements in their later lives (Ross and Mirowsky 2002; Schieman and Plickert 2008).

For instance, Duckworth et al. (2007) showed that individuals who have a higher

education tend to report a higher level of grit; in particular, people who have post-college

degrees were higher in grit than those with lower levels of education, when controlling

for age. However, they interpreted the association between grit and education in the

opposite direction from when they interpreted the effect of age on grit (e.g., older people

are grittier than younger people), concluding “sticking with long-range goals over time

makes possible completion of high levels of education” (Duckworth et al. 2007:1092).

This may be due to their focus on grit as a predictor of academic achievement. However,

their data do not allow a proper examination of causality in either direction. As previous

grit studies have primarily used a cross-sectional design (e.g., Strayhorn 2014) or a 1-year

longitudinal design (e.g., Study 4 in Duckworth and Quinn 2009), the causal relationship

between education, other socioeconomic factors, and grit calls for further investigation.

Grit, however, may not necessarily be directly related to social structural positions

(e.g., Bowman et al. 2015); instead, socioeconomic status may indirectly shape the

development of grit. One potential mediator of the effect of socioeconomic status on grit

is personal sense of control, one of the psychological correlates of grit that has

established a strong association with social stratification (Hitlin and Kwon 2016).

Occupying a higher socioeconomic position in the society allows a person to experience a

smoother life path, reducing a person’s exposure to failures or setbacks in her life that

may hurt her beliefs about personal sense of control (Mirowsky and Ross 2007), and, via

25
this sense of control, the advantages of holding a higher socioeconomic position could

help develop a gritty disposition. Further study should examine whether grit is related to

having a sense of control, a well-researched construct within stratification studies; it is

quite plausible that a person has a high sense of control but little motivation to apply

themselves over time. Grit may measure a missing factor translating social position and

accordant beliefs into advantageous life course activities. To address the empirical gap in

the literature, I will examine how grit is tied to one’s social structural position (via the

sense of control) in Chapter 4.

2.3.2.3. Culture

National culture may be another powerful factor that shapes the development of

grit, an open question given that research thus far has largely developed within an

American context (for a rare example of studying grit across different countries, see

Disabato, Goodman and Kashdan 2018). Exposure to or internalizing different cultural

norms, values and meanings about grit, success, or exertion of agency may encourage or

discourage individual’s development of grit, most commonly studied only at the

individual level. Thus, investigating how distribution of grit varies and how it is

connected with structural and psychological correlates across cultures is also important to

fully understand this potentially beneficial psychological resource. There are only a few

empirical studies that investigate grit in different cultural contexts other than American,

or more broadly, Western contexts, and validate the grit scale for different cultural

populations (e.g., Chinese high school students (Li et al. 2016), Filipino high school and

college students (Datu, Valdez and King 2016a)). However, these studies have relied on

26
single-nation data (e.g., China and Philippines) collected from a limited, target population

(e.g., high school students and college students), making a cross-cultural comparison

difficult. Disabato, Goodman and Kashdan (2018) is a rare example that relies on

international online survey data from 109 countries collected via snowball sampling to

test the validity and reliability of the Grit-O measure. The authors concluded that the grit

scale is less applicable to measuring the overall grit concept in collectivistic countries

than individualistic countries, showing less overlap between two grit dimensions,

consistency of interest and perseverance of effort. More work needs to empirically test

the role of culture in producing cultural differences in the levels and the consequences of

grit.

The social valuation of grit (i.e., whether people think about grit as an important

skill to have to succeed in their society) is an essential factor that needs further theoretical

and empirical investigation. The social values that people attach to grit might be different

in various cultures, which may also contribute to cultural variations in the relationship

between social stratification and gritty disposition. In some countries where meritocratic

beliefs are predominant (e.g., the United States), gritty inclination is highly valued. In this

type of society, the moral superiority is given to those who work hard with passion to

achieve their goals (Duckworth et al. 2007; Lamont 1992; Weber [1904-5] 2002), and

individuals are likely to be motivated to see grit as a valuable feature and thus try hard to

develop gritty inclination to achieve better outcomes in their lives. This cultural

background revolving around hard work could be one reason why Americans are excited

about the concept of grit (see Chapter 5 for further discussion).

27
 However, grit as a virtue may not be just an American belief. Previous studies on

perceived meritocracy and hard work have informed us that other cultures also encourage

people to work hard and put forth efforts to succeed and give moral credit to those who

succeed through their hard work and determination. For example, Confucian values of

diligence and hard work are served as dominant ideologies (as a work ethic) to encourage

individuals to work hard (Kim and Park 2003; Lim and Lay 2003), and this belief system

contributed to rapid economic development in East Asian countries. Thus, in East Asian

countries like South Korea, grit can be very highly valued like it is in the United States.

Despite this possibility, previous studies have not yet examined whether a gritty

disposition is highly valued in every culture or not, and whether grit’s relationship to

success in other countries operates as it does in the United States. In Chapter 5, I will

examine how much people value grit as a virtue vital for success in life in two different

countries, the United States and South Korea, and further explore how this valuation of

grit is linked to social stratification.

28
 CHAPTER 3. VALIDATION OF THE GRIT SCALE

3.1. Background

While there is growing attention to the concept of grit across cultures, researchers

have raised some doubts about grit, especially its empirical measurement (see Section

2.2.2). However, even these criticisms rarely subject the measure to extensive exploration

across diverse samples including non-Western population (Datu, Valdez and King

2016a). In this chapter, using survey data collected from South Korea and the United

States, I test the validity of the Grit-S scale in two country samples.

First, I will test three hypothesized structures of the Grit-S scale in South Korea

and the United States. As described in Chapter 2, Duckworth and Quinn (2009)

operationalize grit as a concept consisting of two sub-components: perseverance of effort

(i.e., perseverance) and consistency of interest (i.e., passion). Based on this conceptual

framework, Duckworth and colleagues (Duckworth et al. 2007; Duckworth and Quinn

2009) proposed a second-order model of Grit-S that hypothesizes a hierarchical structure

of grit model, which consists of grit as a second-order latent concept that is measured by

the two first-order dimensions (perseverance of effort and consistency of interest).

Prior studies conducted by Duckworth and her colleagues supported this

hierarchical model of grit (Duckworth et al. 2007; Duckworth and Quinn 2009) and the

majority of researchers use the grit composite in their analyses (Blalock, Young and

Kleiman 2015; Eskreis-Winkler et al. 2014; Ion, Mindu and Gorbănescu 2017; Ivcevic

and Brackett 2014; Lucas et al. 2015; Reed, Pritschet and Cutton 2013; Salles, Cohen and

Mueller 2014; Singh and Jha 2008). However, a recent meta-analysis conducted by

Credé, Tynan and Harms (2017) documented that the two first-order factors are often

29
uncorrelated or only weakly correlated in previous empirical studies. Several studies

suggested using an alternative model of grit, the two-factor structure of grit, instead of the

hierarchical model of grit: they demonstrated the validity of the two-factor structure of

grit over the hierarchical model and/or used scores of two sub-dimensions separately

instead of using the overall grit score (Abuhassàn and Bates 2015; Arslan, Akin and

Çitemel 2013; Bowman et al. 2015; Datu, Valdez and King 2016a; Datu, Valdez and

King 2016b; Hwang, Lim and Ha 2017).

In addition, whether the Grit scale achieves its validity in other cultures outside of

the United States remains in question. For example, Datu, Valdez and King (2016a)

argued that only the perseverance facet of grit positively predicts academic and well-

being outcomes of Filipino college students and high school students. Disabato,

Goodman and Kashdan (2018) examined the validity of grit in predicting subjective well-

being and personality strengths across different countries: they found that the overall grit

conception was supported in individualistic countries, but not in collectivistic countries

including Asian countries. Hence, in addition to examining the hypothetical structures of

grit, this study will test if the grit scale can be validated in samples collected from two

different countries, the United States and South Korea, emblematic countries of the

popular cultural axis of individualism versus collectivism (Hofstede 1980).

Second, I will test the construct validity of grit in two country samples by

investigating the relationship between grit and subjective well-being, which has been

reported as one of the main consequences of having grit (See section 2.3.1.3. for further

discussion). While some studies provided supportive evidence for the relationship

between grit and subjective well-being (Salles, Cohen and Mueller 2014; Singh and Jha

30
2008), other studies found only partial support or a lack of supportive evidence for this

association. For instance, Disabato, Goodman and Kashdan (2018) found that subjective

well-being shows a stronger positive association with the perseverance dimension than

the consistency dimension across different cultural regions. Datu, Valdez and King

(2016a) also found only perseverance is positively associated with subjective well-being

of Filipino college students and high school students. Sticking to the same goal over the

years despite setbacks may not necessarily be helpful for one’s mental well-being. When

it seems unrealistic to achieve a certain goal and an individual experiences repeated

failures, it may be much better for the person’s subjective well-being to shift one’s goal

to another rather than keeping the same goal over the years despite failures. For grit to

have utility for sociological studies, we need to be clearer about its properties across

cultures and its relationship to important indicators of mental health.

Furthermore, I will also explore the “distinctive” utility of grit in predicting an

individual’s subjective well-being controlling for psychological correlates of grit such as

conscientiousness and subjective beliefs about agency. In Chapter 2, I argued that grit can

operate as a “behavioral engine” that translates one’s subjective beliefs about agency into

agentic behaviors. Subjective beliefs about agency as well as conscientiousness as a

personality trait are well-linked to subjective well-being in the literature; this study

suggests that these social psychological constructs are distinct from grit, the behavioral

inclination of agency. If the unique variance in subjective well-being is explained by grit

controlling for its correlates, the incremental variance by grit indicates grit’s distinctive

utility in explaining an individual’s subjective well-being above and beyond

psychological correlates of grit (i.e., sense of control and conscientiousness), and offers

31
support for a more finely graded understanding of the relationship of agency beliefs and

life course outcomes.

As previous grit researchers reported, I expect that having a higher perseverance

will show a stronger positive association with subjective well-being than having a higher

consistency of interest, drawing on recent cross-cultural findings (Datu, Valdez and King

2016a; Disabato, Goodman and Kashdan 2018). Benefit of having a higher level of

perseverance in terms of subjective well-being will remain significant even controlling

for the sense of control, showing grit’s distinctive utility as a behavioral facet of agency

that the sense of control as a subjective facet of agency fails to capture. The distinctive

utility of grit beyond conscientiousness, however, is in question because the majority of

previous studies have found a very strong correlation between grit and conscientiousness

(see Credé, Tynan, and Harms 2017 for a meta-analysis).

Diener, Oishi and Lucas (2003) argued that predictors of subjective well-being

vary by cultures and these predictors often depend on cultural values in which individuals

are embedded. For example, prior cross-cultural studies have documented that the

predictors related to the self show a stronger predictive power for subjective well-being

in individualistic cultures than collectivistic cultures (Oishi et al. 1999; Suh and Oishi

2002). This calls for the cross-cultural examination of the relationship between the two

grit dimensions and subjective well-being.

32
3.2. Methods

3.2.1. Data

This study relies on original cross-cultural data collected from two countries:

South Korea and the United States. The selection of these two countries for data

collection is based on their distinctive positions on the widely used cultural axis of

individualism vs. collectivism (Hofstede 1980, 2001). As previously mentioned, prior grit

research has been heavily conducted in the United States or Western countries, thus

limiting the generalizability of the grit conception and its measure. Specifically, the

United States has long been categorized as an individualistic society, while South Korea

has been labeled as collectivistic by prior cross-cultural research (Hofstede 1980).

Previous literature documented that people who reside in individualistic cultures tend to

value autonomy, independence, and pursuit of personal goals more than those in

collectivistic cultures (Hofstede 1980; Markus and Kitayama 1991). This chapter aims at

examining the validity of the grit conception and measure in a collectivistic country

where the grit conception and its relationship to subjective well-being has not yet firmly

been established.

Despite the presumed cultural difference between the two countries, the concept

of grit may be applicable to South Korea and valued in Korean context. For instance, as

briefly mentioned in Section 2.3.2.3, Confucian values, that have long been served as

dominant cultural ideologies in Korean society, encourage diligence and hard work (Kim

and Park 2003). This emphasis on hard work in Korean society implicitly suggests that

grit may be also highly valued as essential psychological functioning in South Korea.

33
However, we do not know if the measurement constructs are identical in these two

cultural contexts, or if they operate similarly with respect to life course outcomes.

To recruit respondents, I contracted with Qualtrics Panels to access to a national

panel of American participants as well as a national panel for South Korea. 4 I used quota

sampling on age groups, gender and household income in each country based on the

Luxembourg Income Study Database (LIS), U.S. Census data and Korean Census data.

After list-wise deletion by key variables, the final sample size is 533 in the United States

and South Korea is 475 (see Table 1).

Demographic characteristics for each sample are summarized in Table 1. The

average age of the American sample is slightly higher (47 years old) than the average age

of the Korean sample (42 years old). 5 Both samples in this data set are slightly higher

educated as the percentage of those who have a college degree in current sample (44%

for the American sample and 59% for the Korean sample) is relatively higher than the

population average of 35% and 34%, respectively (OECD Statistics 2016). The

educational discrepancy in South Korea is probably associated with oversampling

younger respondents: According to OECD (2014), there is a huge gap in college degree

attainment (52 percentage points) between younger Koreans (25-34 year-olds) and older

Koreans (55-64 year-olds) in 2012, which is much larger than an OECD average (15

percentage points).

4
Qualtrics manages an anonymous, voluntary, online research panels. Qualtrics sent an email to invite
respondents registered in their panels. This invitation email only included limited information such as a
brief description of the survey to reduce self-selection bias.
5
For the Korean sample, the panel had a shortage of older participants (particularly those who are 55 years
old or above), so I had to slightly oversample respondents who are younger than 55.

34
3.2.2. Measures

The survey instrument contains measures of the key psychological constructs

including the Grit-S Scale (Duckworth and Quinn 2009), sense of control (Mirowsky and

Ross 1991), conscientiousness from the Big-Five personality (John and Srivastava 1999),

psychological well-being measures including life satisfaction and happiness, and a set of

basic demographics questions taken from existing surveys such as the General Social

Survey, the Korean General Social Survey, the World Values Survey and the

International Social Survey Programme. The Korean versions of the sense of control, grit,

and conscientiousness questions that are not available in the existing international

surveys were translated using translation-back translation methods (Brislin 1970) in

consultation with local researchers who are fluent in both English and Korean.

Grit: Grit is measured by the Grit-S scale (Duckworth and Quinn 2009). Building

on its theoretical framework of seeing grit as a higher-order construct consisting of two

lower-order dimensions, Perseverance of Effort (Perseverance, hereafter) and

Consistency of Interest (Consistency, hereafter), Duckworth and Quinn (2009) suggested

each lower-order dimension of grit is measured by four items (see Appendix B for the

question items for the Grit-S scale). Responses range from 1 “Very much like me” to 5

“Not like me at all.” The items measuring the perseverance facet of grit are reverse coded

so that a higher score on the grit scale indicates a higher level of grit. Cronbach’s

reliability coefficients are high in both country samples (α=0.74 for the American sample

α=0.75 for the Korean sample). In addition to the Grit-S composite, I also computed

scores for the two sub-dimensions, Perseverance and Consistency, by averaging

35
responses under each dimension (αperseverance=0.78 and αconsistency=0.85 for the American

sample; αperseverance=0.77 and αconsistency=0.71 for the Korean sample).

Sense of Control: Previous research has established a relationship between having

a higher sense of control and positive life outcomes such as mental well-being (Ross and

Van Willigen 1997; Ross and Mirowsky 2013). The sense of control is measured by the

Personal Sense of Control Scale (Mirowsky and Ross 1991) that includes questions like

“I can do just about anything I really set my mind to (claiming control)” and “There’s no

sense of planning a lot—if something good is going to happen it will (denying control)”

(see Appendix B for the full question set). Following previous practices, responses to the

statements of claiming control are coded as it ranges from -2 “Strongly disagree” to 2

“Strongly agree,” and responses to the statements of denying control are reverse coded so

that a higher averaged score of the questions indicates a higher level of personal control.

Cronbach’s reliability coefficients are high in the American sample (α=0.70) and

relatively moderate in the Korean sample (α=0.57).

Conscientiousness: Conscientiousness is one dimension of Big-Five Personality

that has been reported as being very closely related to grit (Credé, Tynan and Harms

2017; Duckworth and Quinn 2009). Conscientiousness is measured by the scale

suggested by John and Srivastava (1999). Respondents are asked to report how strongly

they agree or disagree with statements that describe themselves such as “does a thorough

job” and “is a reliable worker” (see Appendix B for the questions). Statements that

describe a lack of conscientiousness (i.e., “is easily distracted” and “can be somewhat

careless”) are reverse coded so that a higher score on the scale means a higher level of

36
conscientiousness. Cronbach’s reliability coefficients are high in both American (α=0.86)

and Korean samples (α=0.85).

Subjective Well-being: Subjective well-being is measured by averaging two 11-

item continuous variables (Delhey and Dragolov 2014), happiness and life satisfaction

(α=0.87 in the U.S.; α=0.91 in South Korea). For happiness, respondents are asked to

answer this question: “Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are?” on

an 11-point scale ranging from 0 “Extremely unhappy” to 10 “Extremely happy.” Life

satisfaction is measured with the following question: “All things considered, how

satisfied are you with your life as a whole nowadays?” with responses ranged from 0

“Extremely dissatisfied” to 10 “Extremely satisfied.”

Control Variables: I control for several demographic variables that were shown to

be related to an individual’s subjective well-being by previous research. Age, gender (1 =

male, 0 = female), white (only included in the U.S. model), education (ranges from 1

“less than high school” to 8 “doctorate degree”), household income (has 11 categories

based on deciles of the actual family income range of each country while the last

category reflects the top 5%), marital status (1 = married, 0 = not married) and religiosity

(ranges from 0 “not religious at all” to 10 “very religious”) are included in the analysis.

3.3. Analysis Plan

Study 1 assesses the psychometric properties of the grit measure by testing the

factor structure of Grit-S in the Korean sample as well as in the American sample.

Building on prior works of validating the Grit scale in different samples including online

(Abuhassàn and Bates 2015) and non-Western samples (Datu, Valdez and King 2016a), I

37
test three hypothesized models in this study: 1) a hierarchical model of grit (the higher-

order latent concept of grit and two lower-order grit components, perseverance and

passion), 2) a two-factor structure of grit (no higher-order dimension), and 3) a uni-

dimensional structure of grit (all items are under one latent construct, grit). Following

Datu, Valdez and King (2016a), I will also check the reliability using Cronbach’s Alphas

and the correlation between the two grit dimensions.

In Study 2, using the same samples, I test the construct validity of grit measures

by exploring how grit measures, more specifically, the grit composite (overall grit score)

and the two subcomponents of grit, are associated with individuals’ subjective well-

being. In addition, the distinctive utility of grit over and above other psychological

constructs will be also examined in two countries.

3.4. Study 1: Measurement Tests of the Grit-S Scale

Prior to testing the validation of Grit-S scale in both American and Korean

samples, I first checked the kurtosis and skewness of the data since multivariate

normality of the data distribution is one of the basic assumptions of conducting CFA

(Confirmatory Factor Analysis) using Structural Equation Modeling. It turns out that my

data are not multivariate normal, having both multivariate skewness and kurtosis, which

can produce seriously biased estimates of standard errors thereby affecting my

significance tests. The Satorra-Bentler scaled statistic has been suggested as a remedy for

nonormal data because it corrects test statistics and standard errors, which can be

distorted when data are not normally distributed (Satorra and Bentler 1988). Thus, the

Satorra-Bentler χ2 and Robust Standard Errors are used in the estimation using Mplus 7.4.

38
 Model fit was assessed using the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis

Index (TLI) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Hu and

Bentler (1999) suggested cut-off criteria for fit indices, where values of 0.95 for the CFI

and TLI and values of 0.06 for the RMSEA can be defined as good fit. Values of 0.90 for

the CFI and TLI and values of 0.08 for the RMSEA indicate acceptable or fair fit.

I first tested a higher-order model of grit that hypothesizes a hierarchical structure

of grit model in which two first-order factors (Perseverance and Consistency) are under a

higher-order latent variable (Grit). This model in both country samples did not converge.6

A unidimensional model of grit which hypothesizes all grit items are under one latent

variable (Grit) produces poor fit in both countries (S-Bχ2=704.168, df=20, CFI*=0.538,

TLI*=0.353, RMSEA*=0.253 in the American sample and S-Bχ2=297.496, df=20,

CFI*=0.698, TLI*=0.577, RMSEA*=0.171 in the Korean sample).

Building on prior work that supported the two-factor structure of grit scale in

diverse samples including an online sample (Abuhassàn and Bates 2015) as well as a

collectivistic sample (Datu, Valdez and King 2016a), I tested the two-factor structure of

the grit scale in which two latent constructs (Perseverance and Consistency) are allowed

to be correlated and they each have four items. The two-factor model of grit produced

good fit indices for the American sample (S-Bχ2=63.589, df=19, CFI*=0.970,

TLI*=0.956, RMSEA*=0.066) and the same model yielded acceptable fit indices for the

Korean sample (S-Bχ2=78.187, df=19, CFI*=0.936, TLI*=0.905, RMSEA*=0.081). A

better-fitted model was yielded with one modification based on modification indices:

6
The model did not converge because it is not identified. Since the two-factor model shows a weak
correlation between the two first-order factors (perseverance and consistency), casting doubt on the higher-
order model, I did not take additional steps to identify the higher-order model (e.g., adding another first-
order latent variable or imposing an identifying restriction).

39
consistency item 4 “I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more

than a few months to complete” was suggested to be loaded on both dimensions (S-

Bχ2=40.880, df=18, CFI*=0.985, TLI*=0.976, RMSEA*=0.049 in the American sample

and S-Bχ2=57.986, df=18, CFI*=0.956, TLI*=0.932, RMSEA*=0.068 in the Korean

sample).7 All items were significantly loaded on the designated grit factors in this

modified model, and the two latent variables were correlated to each other in both

samples (0.093 for the American sample; 0.201 for the Korean sample, p < .05).8 Taken

together, results presented in Table 3 support the two-factor model (and the one with

modification) in both country samples.

I also checked reliability using Cronbach’s Alphas of the two dimensions of grit,

Perseverance and Consistency, as well as the grit composite. The Cronbach’s Alphas are

high for both samples (see Table 2): The Cronbach’s Alphas of the grit composite are

0.74 for the American sample and 0.75 for the Korean sample and those of separate

dimensions, Perseverance and Consistency, are also high in both samples in current data

set (αperseverance=0.78 and αconsistency=0.85 for the American sample; αperseverance=0.77 and

αconsistency=0.71 for the Korean sample).

Using the two-factor model with modification that shows good fit to both

American and Korean data, I conducted multi-group CFA (MGCFA) and tested the

measurement invariance of the Grit-S scale across two country samples. Prior research

has commonly suggested three major steps for testing measurement invariance (Van de

7
Modification indices in both country samples commonly suggested loading this item onto the
perseverance dimension. Pairwise correlations of grit items show that this item is moderately correlated
with items on the perseverance dimension. r ranges from 0.21 to 0.24 in the American sample (p < .05) and
it was slightly higher in the Korean sample where r ranges from 0.17 to 0.37 (p < .05). One exception was
perseverance item 1 “Setbacks don’t discourage me” which was not significantly correlated with
consistency item 4 in the American sample.
8
This low correlation between the two dimensions of grit may be the reason why the unidimensional model
of grit yielded poor fit to data.

40
Schoot, Lugtig and Hox 2012; Xu and Tracey 2017): 1) Configural invariance, 2) metric

invariance, and 3) scalar invariance. As a first step, a test for configural invariance should

be completed. Configural invariance assumes that items load onto the same latent factor

across groups. If configural invariance is established, we can move onto the next test. A

metric invariance model assumes that all factor loadings are invariant across groups. If

metric invariance is satisfied, we can say that Americans and Koreans respond to the grit

items in the same way and the meaning of each item is the same across countries. A final

step is for testing scalar invariance: If the assumption that the intercept of each item is

invariant across groups, it supports scalar invariance which assumes that people have the

same starting point in answering to the items across countries. 9

Model fit was assessed by examining Chi-square differences using the Satorra-

Bentler scaled Chi-square (ΔS-Bχ2) and changes in the CFI* (ΔCFI*) between the

models. I computed the Satorra-Bentler scaled Chi-square difference based on the

tutorials provided on the Mplus website (https://www.statmodel.com/chidiff.shtml),

Satorra and Bentler (1994), and Dimitrov (2010). Cheung and Rensvold (2002) suggested

that the ΔCFI* between the models smaller than -0.01 indicates an acceptable model fit

for a more restrictive model.

Findings are summarized in Table 4. Results of configural invariance test show

good fit to current data, supporting configural invariance of the two-factor structure of the

Grit-S scale across two country samples. Second, I tested for metric invariance of the

model by making factor loadings of all grit items invariant across two groups. The

change in the CFI* (ΔCFI*) from the configural invariance model to the metric

9
Since I am interested in the relationship between grit and other variables and not in comparing means, this
chapter focuses on testing configural and metric invariances.

41
invariance model was greater than -0.01 and the Satorra-Bentler scaled Chi-square

difference (ΔS-Bχ2) was statistically significant, suggesting metric invariance is not

supported. Based on this result, I tested for partial metric invariance as a third step for

testing measurement invariance because researchers have argued that partial metric

invariance could warrant further invariance tests (Byrne, Shavelson and Muthén 1989;

Vandenberg and Lance 2000). I freed consistency item 3, “New ideas and projects

sometimes distract me from previous ones,” in the Korean model as it showed lower

factor loading in the Korean model compared to the American model. ΔCFI* from

configural invariance to partial metric invariance was smaller than -0.01 and ΔS-Bχ2 was

not statistically significant (p > .05), supporting partial metric invariance of the two-

factor grit model. Scalar invariance is not supported as ΔCFI* (-0.041) and ΔS-Bχ2

(123.944, p < .05) do not satisfy the cut-off criteria. In sum, these results suggest that at

least partial metric invariance exists across the two country samples, suggesting that the

two-factor structure of grit is applicable for the Korean online sample as well as the

American online sample.

3.5. Study 2: Testing the Construct Validity of the Grit Measures

Table 5 presents correlations of grit measures (Grit-S and two sub-dimensions of

grit) with subjective well-being that is known to be an important outcome of having grit,

and two psychological correlates that are known to be associated with grit (sense of

control and conscientiousness).10 The grit composite (i.e., Grit-S score) as well as two

10
I conducted the same analysis using the alternative variable of measuring perseverance (that includes the
response to the consistency item 4 when calculating the average score of perseverance) as Study 1
suggested the two-factor model with a modification (a cross-loading of consistency item 4 on
perseverance), but I did not find any significant difference between the results.

42
sub-dimensions are positively correlated with subjective well-being in the two country

samples (p < .05), except for consistency which shows a non-significant correlation with

psychological well-being in the American sample (p > .05). Sense of control and

conscientiousness are all positively associated with the grit composite as well as two

separate dimensions of grit (p < .05).

Based on this correlation, I tested whether grit measures are positively correlated

with the subjective well-being when holding other variables constant. Table 6 presents

results of the hierarchical regression analysis. 11 Models 1 and 4 (base models) include the

grit composite (Grit-S score) and the two sub-dimensions of grit (i.e., perseverance and

consistency) respectively, in addition to the basic sociodemographic variables such as

age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, marital status and religiosity that are documented

as being associated with subjective well-being. Models 2 and 5 include the sense of

control, Models 3 and 6 include conscientiousness in addition to the variables included in

earlier models to see if grit coefficients remain statistically significant even after those

important psychological correlates are entered in the models. If grit measures are still

statistically significant in Models 2 and 5, this supports the distinctive utility of grit

measures beyond the commonly studied sense of control in explaining variance in

subjective well-being. If grit measures are still statistically significant in Models 3 and 6,

this supports the distinctive utility of grit measures beyond the sense of control and

conscientiousness in explaining the variances in subjective well-being.

Results of Models 1 and 4 show that the grit composite and the perseverance

subscales were positively associated with subjective well-being in both samples (p < .05).

11
Again, I conducted the same analysis using the alternative variable of measuring perseverance (including
the consistency 4 item in creating perseverance scores), but there was no significant difference between the
results.

43
These findings corroborate with prior findings about the positive impact of having grit on

subjective well-being, particularly supporting the advantage of having perseverance,

especially what Datu, Valdez and King (2016a) found using their Filipino student sample.

In the U.S., while the advantageous effects of having higher levels of

perseverance remained significant after controlling for the sense of control (Model 5) and

conscientiousness (Model 6), the advantageous effect of having higher levels of overall

grit on subjective well-being was explained away as two psychological correlates of grit

(i.e., sense of control and conscientiousness) were entered in Models 2 and 3.

In South Korea, both the overall grit score (grit composite) and perseverance

remained statistically significant even after the sense of control is entered in Models 2

and 5, respectively. However, the significant effects of the grit composite and

perseverance disappear as conscientiousness was added to Models 3 and 6.

Taken together, the findings of Study 2 support the distinctive utility of having

perseverance (beyond the sense of control and conscientiousness) for subjective well-

being among Americans in my online sample: one’s perseverance was positively

associated with his/her subjective well-being measured by life satisfaction and general

happiness above and beyond grit’s correlates while one’s consistency of interest was not

linked to his/her subjective well-being among American respondents. While the

significant effects of the grit composite and perseverance on subjective well-being among

Korean respondents were found controlling for the sense of control and

sociodemographic variables, these effects were not significant when taking

conscientiousness into account.

44
3.6. Discussion

Is the concept of grit applicable to other cultural contexts? Does grit explain any

unique variance in subjective well-being over other close psychological constructs? In an

attempt to address these questions, this chapter presents results of two studies. First,

Study 1 validated the Grit-S scale using cross-cultural data collected from the United

States and South Korea. Consistent with previous research which documented a lack of or

weak correlation between the two lower-order facets of grit—perseverance and

consistency (Credé, Tynan and Harms 2017; Datu, Valdez and King 2016a), current data

support the two-factor structure of grit, suggesting grit is better understood as a construct

consisting of two separate dimensions, perseverance of effort and consistency of interest,

rather than grit as a global construct. In addition, this two-factor model of grit achieved

partial metric invariance across two country samples which allows the comparison

between structural relationships with other variables across groups. These results from

the multigroup confirmatory factor analysis implies that respondents in both country

samples tend to interpret and respond to grit items in a relatively similar way.

Consistent with previous findings on a positive correlation between grit and well-

being outcomes, Study 2 found grit is positively associated with subjective well-being in

both country samples, controlling for key sociodemographic variables. In addition,

findings show that grit, more specifically the perseverance facet of grit, achieves the

distinctive utility in explaining subjective well-being of Americans and Koreans above

and beyond the sense of control, a traditional measure of subjective agency. However, the

distinctive utility beyond conscientiousness is only found for the perseverance dimension

of grit in the American sample: conscientiousness as a personality trait adds little to the

45
understanding of Americans’ subjective well-being beyond its correlate, grit. In contrast,

the distinctive utility of any grit measures above and beyond conscientiousness was not

found in the Korean sample. This finding implies that, in South Korea, grit seems to

overlap to a large extent with conscientiousness in predicting an individual’s subjective

well-being. This finding may cast doubt on the distinctive utility of grit (or perseverance)

in predicting subjective well-being beyond conscientiousness in South Korea.

Several limitations of this study should be discussed. One of the critical

limitations of this study stems from its sample. Data that current study relies on are

collected from respondents who are voluntarily registered for the online panel of the

survey company. This may produce biased samples. However, given the fact that

previous psychological studies on grit have used highly selective populations such as

college students, high school students, teachers, medical residents, spelling bee

competition finalists and cadets, current data collected from more general, less selective

populations have a distinctive advantage over previous works. Another limitation comes

from the cross-sectional design of current data that makes it difficult to clarify the

causality of the relationships. While this study assumes grit is predictive of subjective

well-being based on previous works and theoretical justification, it is possible that the

causal ordering of grit and subjective well-being operates in the opposite direction, such

that one’s subjective well-being encourages individuals to perceive one’s level of grit

higher than others who are with worse subjective well-being. Future research should

disentangle this issue of causality using longitudinal data.

Despite these limitations, this chapter contributes to demonstrating the validity of

the grit conception and measure in online samples collected from South Korea and the

46
United States. While the concept and the measure of grit are developed and

predominantly researched in the United States that has been categorized as a typical

individualistic society, findings of this study provides supportive evidences that we can

apply this construct to South Korea that has been considered as typically collectivistic.

47
 CHAPTER 4. A CROSS-CULTURAL EXAMINATION OF SOCIAL
STRATIFICATION OF GRIT

4.1. Background

Stratification by wealth, income, education and occupation has long been at the

heart of sociology (Blau and Duncan 1967; Breen and Jonsson 2005; Featherman and

Hauser 1978; Jonsson et al. 2009; Keister and Moller 2000; Lee and Solon 2009; McCall

and Percheski 2010). However, social stratification research often implies individual

behaviors or beliefs are direct outcomes of one’s structural locations (Ross and Mirowsky

2013). Much less is known about the psychological resources that mediate the effect of

these structural inequalities. In this chapter, I theorize that grit is an important

psychological resource that reveals this mechanism in which stratification is reproduced

(see Chapter 2 for further theoretical discussion). As previously discussed, grit has been

proposed as key to success (Duckworth 2016; Duckworth et al. 2007; Duckworth et al.

2011), but prior claims seem to hold the assumption that grit is not tied to socioeconomic

backgrounds; rather, grit’s development is a random event based on modeling and

everyone can foster grit (see the earlier section on conscientiousness as a personality

trait). In contrast to prior presumptions, I hypothesize that grit is indirectly linked to a

person’s socioeconomic position through the positive associations with the sense of

control. To test this hypothesis, in this chapter, I analyzed a new cross-cultural data set

collected from four different countries: France, South Korea, Turkey and the United

States.

I place this study within a research tradition that examines individual-level

mechanisms that maintain or solidify existing social stratification through individual

48
psychology (Kohn and Schooler 1969; Pearlin and Kohn 1966; Sewell, Haller and Portes

1969; Sewell, Haller and Ohlendorf 1970). One recent example that uncovers the

connections among socioeconomic background, individuals’ psychological resources and

stratified life outcomes is the sense of control, a belief that one can control his/her life

outcomes (Mirowsky and Ross 1991). Prior research has documented that higher

educated people tend to report a higher sense of control, and this stronger belief in one’s

control predicts better life outcomes such as educational achievement and well-being

(Mirowsky and Ross 1998; Ross and Mirowsky 2013; You, Hong and Ho 2011). Grit,

theoretically, plays a driving force of transforming this subjective belief about personal

agency (i.e., sense of control) to actual practices of exerting agency in a person’s life,

which in turn influence life outcomes (see Chapter 2 for further discussion). Surprisingly,

these two phenomena (sense of control and grit) have only been studied in isolation,

overwhelmingly in the United States, and the latter concept – growing in influence in

psychology – is almost unmentioned in sociology (see Kundu 2016; Kundu and Noguera

2014 for rare exceptions). This chapter explores these two psychological resources as

distinct facets of agency, an umbrella construct that has long been a core topic in the life

course literature, and demonstrates that grit, that is seemingly unrelated to structural

positions, is in fact linked to a person’s socioeconomic position via the personal sense of

control.

This study is the first attempt to demonstrate grit’s potential role in contributing

to social stratification research, cross-culturally. With heavy attention to grit’s utility as a

powerful predictor of academic achievement, previous research on grit has placed grit in

a contextual vacuum, dismissing potential roles of social structure and culture that may

49
influence an individual’s development of grit (see Kundu 2016 for recent sociological

attempt to place grit in the structural context). Because previous grit studies have been

heavily concentrated in the United States (Datu, Valdez and King 2016a), we are left with

unexamined questions about whether grit is tied to social structural positions, potentially

via the subjective beliefs about agency (e.g., sense of control), and whether this linkage

between status, the sense of control and grit is observed outside of the United States in

which the majority of grit studies have been based.

Filling the gaps in previous research, I argue that one’s level of grit is indirectly

linked to a person’s socioeconomic position via the sense of control. This chapter

demonstrates an individual’s grit is linked to the typical measure of agency (i.e., sense of

control) that is widely linked to structural antecedents and achievement by analyzing data

from four nations with distinct cultures (France, South Korea, Turkey and the United

States), and this linkage between the sense of control and grit enables us to uncover the

indirect linkage between socioeconomic positions and grit. If supported, this contributes

to stratification research by uncovering an additional psychological resource that

potentially maintains or solidifies existing stratification across cultures.

4.2. Linking Grit to Social Stratification

4.2.1. Building a Linkage Between Sense of Control and Grit

Research on an individual-level mechanism that maintains or solidifies existing

social stratification is not new to sociology. As one classic example, Sewell, Haller and

Portes (1969) introduced the Wisconsin model of status attainment and illuminated a

critical role of social psychological resources, such as educational and occupational

50
aspiration, in maintaining and reproducing social stratification (by mediating the effect of

family origin on the educational and occupational attainment). In addition, self-direction

(Pearlin and Kohn 1966) and long-term future planning (O'Rand and Ellis 1974) are

closely linked to social stratification such that people from an upper-class background are

more likely to develop these psychological resources.

As a more recent example in this research tradition, a subjective sense of agency,

which refers to individuals’ subjective beliefs about one’s power over life outcomes, has

been at the heart of life course research (Hitlin and Long 2009). The sense of control

(Mirowsky and Ross 1991) is the most widely used measure (see Section 2.3.2.1 for

detailed review on this concept). Individuals who have a higher sense of control believe

that they are responsible for the successes and failures in their lives, not attributing their

life outcomes to external factors including fate or luck. As mentioned earlier in this

dissertation, the sense of control has been documented as a core link between

stratification position (largely captured through education) and individual outcomes like

academic achievement and well-being (Mirowsky and Ross 1998; Ross and Mirowsky

2013; You, Hong and Ho 2011). Having more of this sense is associated with positive life

course outcomes.

While the linkage between agency and one’s life course outcomes has long been

one of the major concerns of life course researchers, the majority of research has

concentrated on how one’s aspirations, expectations, or subjective beliefs shape one’s life

outcomes. Having an agentic belief, however, is only part of the process linking

subjectivity to concrete life outcomes. I argue that grit can be interpreted as a “behavioral

engine” that bridges status, subjective beliefs about one’s power over life, and actual life

51
course outcomes (see Chapter 2 in this dissertation and Kwon 2017 for further

discussion). Research on agency almost fully relies on studies of subjective self-beliefs,

largely assuming those beliefs get translated into action. However, as previously

mentioned, the Hare (in the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare) has a strong belief in

one’s control over the race, but fails to achieve a desired goal as he lacks grit. Grit offers

one potential mechanism translating those beliefs into behaviors that influence

stratification outcomes.

As briefly discussed in Chapter 2, previous research has proposed a link between

the sense of control and grit, implying that the sense of control motivates individuals to

develop gritty attitudes toward their long-term goals, which then lead to better life

outcomes (Duckworth et al. 2007). Examining the link between one’s subjective beliefs

about agency (i.e., sense of control) and one’s behavioral inclination of agency (i.e.,

working hard toward goal pursuit; grit) could contribute to our understanding about how

the well-established relationship between subjective beliefs and life outcomes “works,”

by directing people toward their desired goals. Previous psychological studies on goal-

setting and motivational theories inform us that people have an array of goals available to

them and that goals motivate people to act in certain ways (see Dweck 2017 for a recent

review). As a classic empirical example, Zimmerman, Bandura and Martinez-Pons

(1992) found that students’ perceptions about academic self-efficacy (i.e., beliefs that

they are capable of regulating their learning behaviors and achieving better academic

outcomes) influenced students’ academic performance directly and indirectly through

positive associations with their personal goal-setting. In this way, how people “translate”

their subjective agency to attain a particular life outcome may necessarily involve their

52
goal-setting and pursuit. Thus, grit could be one way that subjective beliefs and

aspirations motivate people toward goal pursuit.

Given that people in advantageous social positions are more likely to possess

more valued resources that further lead to better achievement (Bourdieu 1984),

individuals with higher socioeconomic status will be more likely to acquire those

psychological resources that are, in turn, beneficial for maintaining those advantaged

positions (see Kwon 2017 for further discussion). One possibility is that people who

already obtain better structural positions tend to hold more agentic perspectives, such as

having stronger control beliefs, which in turn encourage gritty disposition. This may

show the positive association between the two agentic components (i.e., the sense of

control and grit) and the mediating effect of the sense of control on the relationship

between structural positions and grit. 12 I suggest that developing a sense of control is only

a part of what keeps people working toward various stratification goals; it likely increases

a sense of grit that in turn motivates the stick-to-it approach important for success.

4.2.2. Bringing Grit into Sociological Focus: Social Stratification and Grit

While the sense of control has been documented as having a well-established

relationship with social structural positions and stratification consequences (Mirowsky

and Ross 2007; Ross and Mirowsky 2013; You, Hong and Ho 2011), grit has rarely been

linked to social stratification. Part of the reason that grit gains such popularity from the

general public and media is due to the assumption that grit is not fixed, but a teachable

12
However, we can also find people who are strong believers in their own agency but often give up on their
goals, putting less effort toward life projects (the “Hare” case). This case with a potential inconsistency
between the two important psychological resources implies that grit and the sense of control are not
identical, though likely positively correlated.

53
trait (Duckworth 2016). Grit is suggested as one of the useful “non-cognitive skills”

(Lareau 2015) that benefit children, particularly those from high-poverty environments

who lack critical economic and social resources for achievement (Shechtman et al. 2013).

Grit researchers have been largely unconcerned with the influence of socioeconomic

position on its development. As grit researchers argued, grit may be a supplementary

psychological resource that helps these people lacking in other beneficial resources to

persevere and stick with better life course trajectories (Shechtman et al. 2013). However,

this approach to grit (i.e., seeing grit as a class-free, individual skill) has also raised

concerns about blaming the victim; giving too much focus on grit in school achievement

would contribute to solidifying the conservative notion of ‘blaming the victim’ (Zernike

2016).

This chapter will show that shedding light on the mediating role of the sense of

control directs us to explore the possibility that grit is tied to one’s socioeconomic

background. This chapter aims at demonstrating the relationship between socioeconomic

status, the sense of control and grit, putting grit in proper social structural contexts that

previous grit studies have largely dismissed.

4.3. Understanding Cultural Contexts of Grit

Previous cross-cultural research has found that the basic assumptions we have

held for individual functioning are not universal, but vary across cultures (Matsumoto

and Yoo 2006). The vast majority of psychological research has concentrated on the

western industrialized countries or WEIRD (i.e., Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich

and Democratic) populations (Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan 2010), and this

54
concentration on the Western populations, or more specifically American samples, also

becomes a concern for grit research (Datu, Valdez and King 2016a), as well as the study

of agency more broadly. Whether the concept and measure of grit that have been

developed in the United Sates can be applicable to other cultural contexts is, thus, open to

discussion.

Cultures provide individuals with different perspectives or schema that inform

them how to view the self, the world and the relationship between the two. In the Western

tradition, the self has long been viewed as autonomous and separated from others (Geertz

1973). Markus and Kitayama (1991) found that this type of independent self is

predominant in the United States and Western European countries while in other nations

including East Asian countries an interdependent self, which is less differentiated from

others and considers relationship to others important to decide who you are, is prevalent.

Holding different views on the self is also linked to how individuals perceive their power

over life outcomes. For example, Sastry and Ross (1998) have found cultural differences

in the sense of control: in cultures like American culture where autonomy and

independence are highlighted, people are more likely to be encouraged to hold a stronger

belief about personal control (i.e., the sense of control) than those who are embedded in

cultures that value autonomy to a lesser degree.

As discussed in Chapter 3, only recently have researchers endeavored to validate

the grit scale and the utility of grit in non-Western contexts such as China (Li et al. 2016),

the Philippines (Datu, Valdez and King 2016a; Datu, Valdez and King 2016b), Japan

(Suzuki et al. 2015), and South Korea (Mun and Ham 2016). While these studies have

clearly contributed to our understanding of grit by extending its focus to different cultural

55
settings, they limit their data collection to student samples (for exception, Suzuki et al.

2015 relies on working adults in Japan) in a single nation which makes cross-cultural

comparison difficult (for a rare exception that examines the validity of grit cross-

culturally with online population, see Disabato, Goodman and Kashdan 2018). In

addition, we still do not know how social structure, the sense of control and grit are

interrelated since these studies have also concentrated on grit’s predictive power of life

outcomes, demonstrating a disjuncture between psychological and sociological inquiries.

To fill the gap in the literature, this chapter takes a first step toward exploring how

structure, agentic beliefs and grit operate in four different countries with distinctive

cultural contexts.

4.4. Methods

4.4.1. Data

This study is based on four-nation data collected by a new cross-national survey,

Moral Schemas, Cultural Conflict, and Socio-Political Action (2015). Data were

collected from France, South Korea, Turkey and the United States. This cross-cultural

data collection lies not only on the opposite axes of important value dimensions (e.g.,

materialism vs. post-materialism in Inglehart and Abramson 1999), but also on the

opposite axis of the widely used cultural dimension of individualism vs. collectivism

(Hofstede 1980, 2001). Quota sampling on gender, age groups and household income in

each country is used for data collection. Sample sizes are around 450, with key

demographics being as representative of the target nations as possible (the Turkish

sample is younger and highly educated compared to the national averages). After list-

56
wise deletion by key variables, final samples for this study range from 436 (Turkey) to

467 (South Korea).

Table 7 summarizes demographic characteristics of the four nation samples. The

average ages in the American sample (46.25 years old) and the French sample (46.05

years old) are similar to each other and the Korean sample (42.95 years old) is slightly

younger than them, while the Turkish sample (34.15 years old) is pretty younger than

other samples.13 College completion rates of current samples are higher than the

population average (OECD Statistics 2016): our samples are relatively higher educated

(42% for the American sample, 51% for the French sample and 63% for the Korean

sample) than their population averages (35%, 20% and 34%, respectively), and the

percentage of those who have a college degree in Turkish sample (67%) is much higher

than the population average (14%). This educational discrepancy in the Turkish sample

may be due to the oversampling of younger respondents.

4.4.2. Measures

The survey includes measures of the sense of control (Mirowsky and Ross 1991),

part of the Grit-S Scale (Duckworth and Quinn 2009), the Portrait Values Questionnaire

(Schwartz 1994; Schwartz et al. 2001), and a set of basic demographics questions derived

from the General Social Survey, the World Values Survey, the European Social Survey

and the International Social Survey Programme.

13
Due to a shortage of older participants in the Turkish sample, respondents who are younger than 45 were
oversampled in Turkey.

57
 Grit and Sense of Control: Four questions from the Grit Scale (Grit-S) developed

by Duckworth and Quinn (2009) are used in the data analysis. 14 Scales range from 1

“very much like me” to 5 “not like me at all.” Following Duckworth et al. (2007),

responses are averaged to create a measure for grit, ranging from 1 to 5. Cronbach’s

Alpha coefficients for this 4-item grit scale range from 0.30 (France) to 0.49 (South

Korea).15 For sense of control, the Sense of Control Index (Mirowsky and Ross 1991,

2007) is used. Response categories range from -2 “strongly disagree” to 2 “strongly

agree.” Responses are averaged to construct an indicator for the sense of control.

Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for the sense of control range from 0.63 (France) to 0.76

(Turkey).

When studying abstract concepts cross-culturally, it is important to establish

measurement invariance across countries (Matsumoto and Yoo 2006). In particular,

showing metric invariance of the measurement models (whether the factor loadings of

latent constructs are the same across countries) is crucial as it indicates that there is no

cultural difference in responding to the survey questions that are presented to measure the

concept. Since in the survey only two items for each sub-dimension of grit were included,

I could not run a higher-order CFA that is suggested in Duckworth and Quinn (2009)—

the model did not converge because it is not identified. Instead, I loaded all four items

onto one latent variable, grit, and added the sense of control measurement model to test

the measurement invariance in tandem. Model fit was assessed by examining changes in

14
Duckworth and Quinn (2009) shortened their original 12-item Grit scale (Duckworth et al. 2007) to the
Grit-S scale with 8 items based on each item’s predictive validity across different samples. Using the same
criteria, 4 items (2 items for perseverance and 2 items for consistency of interest) that show the highest
predictive validity across different samples in Duckworth and Quinn (2009) are selected and included in the
survey.
15
This low Cronbach’s Alphas may be due to the incomplete Grit-S scale that current data set includes.

58
CFI (ΔCFI): Cheung and Rensvold (2002) suggested that ΔCFI between the models

smaller than -0.01 indicates an acceptable model fit for a more restrictive model. Mplus

7.4 was used in this analysis.

Since the initial measurement model without any covaried error terms yielded

inadequate fit to data, modification indices were used to figure out potential items that

need modifications. According to modification indices, I added four correlations between

the error terms (the perseverance items “setbacks don’t discourage me” and “I finish

whatever I begin”; the sense of control items “I am responsible for my failures” and “my

misfortunes are the result of mistakes I have made”; the sense of control items “I am

responsible for my failures” and “most of my problems are due to bad breaks”; the sense

of control items “I can do just about anything I really set my mind to” and “there’s no

sense of planning a lot—if something good is going to happen it will”). With these

modifications, the configural invariance model yielded better fit to data (χ 2=726.836,

df=188, RMSEA=0.080, CFI=0.900). I tested metric invariance by imposing all factor

loadings invariant, but the metric invariance model yielded an inadequate fit as ΔCFI was

larger than -0.01 (χ2=844.643, df=215, RMSEA=0.080, CFI=0.883). I tested partial

metric invariance by freeing some factor loadings. The final measurement model yielded

an acceptable fit for the partial invariance model as ΔCFI was close to the cut-off criteria

of -0.01 (χ2=811.700, df=209, RMSEA=0.080, CFI=0.888), though not perfect.

Social Structural Positions: Social structural positions are measured by an

individual’s objective socioeconomic status such as education and household income as

well as subjective class identification. Education and household income questions were

originally taken from the World Value Survey and the European Social Survey,

59
respectively, that reflects local context, such as the educational system and local

currency. For example, the household income question was drawn from the European

Social Survey: the question has 10 categories based on deciles of the actual household

income range of each country. 16 Subjective class identification ranging from 1 “lower

class” to 6 “upper class” is included in the analysis to measure one’s subjective

perceptions of socioeconomic status. I expect education and household income are

positively associated with subjective class identification, and this subjective perception

will mediate the effects of objective structural positions on individuals’ psychological

functioning. Whether individuals really ‘believe’ that they are in positions with sufficient

resources to author their own life trajectories could more directly influence the

development and exertion of agency.

Valuing Autonomy: As a part of Schwartz’s 21-item Portrait Values

Questionnaire (PVQ; Schwartz et al. 2001), respondents were asked to answer how much

the person described in each item is like them on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1

“very much like me” to 6 “not like me at all.” To measure the extent to which

respondents in each nation value autonomy in their own lives, responses to the two items

of the Schwartz’s battery were reverse coded and averaged to create an index for valuing

autonomy (Schwartz 2013): “It is important to her/him to make her/his own decisions

about what she/he does. She/he likes to be free and not depend on others” and “Thinking

up new ideas and being creative is important to her/him. She/he likes to do things in

16
For detailed information, see ESS survey documentations “ESS6 Appendix A2 Income ed. 2.0” and
“ESS4 Appendix A2 Income ed. 5.0” on the ESS website (http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/). For the
income questions for the American and Korean surveys, the research team created corresponding income
categories based on the US household data provided by The Luxembourg Income Study Database (LIS)
and the Korean Census data (Korean Statistical Information Service; KOSIS), following practices described
in the aforementioned ESS document.

60
her/his own original way.” Cronbach’s Alphas range from 0.55 (France) to 0.64 (Turkey).

As previous researchers pointed out differences in how individuals use the scale (e.g.,

some respondents tend to avoid extreme values of the scale while others tend to use the

extreme values to highlight the importance), Schwartz (2013) suggested correcting for

these individual differences by centering each value around the individual’s mean scores

across all values. Following his guidance, I centered the scores around individual means

so that a higher score means a higher relative importance that a person gives to autonomy

(see Table 8).

Demographics: I controlled for several demographic variables that were

documented to be related to grit and the sense of control: age, gender (1 = male, 0 =

female), racial/ethnic majority (1 = white in the U.S. and France; Turkish in Turkey, 0 =

non-white in the U.S. and France; non-Turkish in Turkey), marital status (1 = married, 0

= not married) and religion (1 = have a religion, 0 = no religion) were included in the

analysis.

4.5. Results

Cross-cultural studies often assume the association between cultural orientations

and particular nations (e.g., mostly assuming Americans or Western Europeans as

individualist while East Asians as collectivist) and rely on this assumption when

interpreting cultural differences in psychological functioning (Oyserman, Coon and

Kemmelmeier 2002). Prior to the main analysis of the relationship between social

structural positions, sense of control and grit in four countries, I explored cultural

contexts of valuing autonomy in four different countries to get a general sense of whether

61
and how four countries in our sample differ with regard to cultural orientation of valuing

the development of agentic attitudes towards life. Table 8 shows that Americans, on

average, place relatively high importance on agentic values in their own lives, followed

by France, Turkey, and South Korea (F = 21.35, p < .001). This finding offers a clue that

these four country samples have distinct cultural contexts of how people see autonomy,

as hypothesized at the data collection stage.

Table 9 presents descriptive statistics on the sense of control and grit, as well as

bivariate correlation results. Americans, French people, Turks and Koreans show high

levels of sense of control and grit in general, scoring higher than the mid-point of each

scale (i.e., 0 on the sense of control scale and 3 on the grit scale). Mean values of the

sense of control and grit are slightly higher among Americans than others, though the gap

between these countries is not large enough to discuss cross-cultural differences. 17 Given

our Turkish sample is much younger (age mean = 34.13) than other national samples

(U.S. age mean = 46.25, France age mean = 46.05, Korean age mean = 42.95), high

levels of the sense of control and grit in Turkish sample might be affected by this skewed

sample in Turkey. 18

As Duckworth suspected, grit is positively associated with a sense of personal

control: in Table 9, I find that bivariate correlations between grit and the sense of control

ranged from 0.22 (France) to 0.37 (the United States), indicating small-to-moderate

correlations between the two across countries (p < .001). A person can be a strong

17
In addition, since the measurement model conducted in earlier section did not achieve scalar invariance,
we cannot directly compare the means across cultures.
18
Recent studies (e.g., Marcus et al. 2017) documented the younger generation in Turkey is more
individualistic (e.g., highlighting personal autonomy over societal goals) than older generations even
though Turkey has been labeled as more collectivistic than Western countries, suggesting generational
shifts on cultural orientation in Turkey.

62
believer in one’s control over life outcomes and work hard toward goals at the same time.

However, we often see some people feel difficult to turn their motivation into hard work

to achieve their goals. That is, while an individual can believe she is responsible for her

outcomes, she may not be interested in putting (or able to put) vigorous and enduring

effort into achieving a goal. The low correlation scores in this analysis, thus, imply that

while grit is positively associated with the sense of control (the traditional measure of

subjective agency), they are not identical but distinct, not only in the United States but

also in other countries.

I conducted structural equation modeling analysis to elaborate the mediating role

of the sense of control between individual’s structural position and one’s gritty

disposition in four countries, using Stata 15 (see Table 10). I expect that positive

associations between structural positions, sense of control and grit are commonly found

across four countries (see Figure 1 for a hypothetical path diagram), but with varying

degrees of association. To evaluate model fit to data, Chi-square statistic (χ2), the Root

Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI)

were used. Insignificant Chi-square statistic (p > .05), values of 0.95 or above for the

CFI, and values of 0.06 or below for the RMSEA are considered as good fit (Hu and

Bentler 1999).

Table 10 shows standardized path coefficients from the same structural models

(see Figure 1, but note that the Korean model does not include racial majority in the

model) in four samples. Fit indices were good in all four countries, suggesting my

hypothesized model (presented in Figure 1) fits the data well (χ2 =7.436, df=10, p=0.684,

RMSEA=0.000, CFI=1.000, in the U.S.; χ2 =25.378, df=10, p=0.005, RMSEA=0.058,

63
CFI=0.932 in France; χ2=12.296, df=10, p=0.266, RMSEA=0.023, CFI=0.979 in Turkey;

χ2=11.883, df=9, p=0.220, RMSEA=0.026, CFI=0.986 in South Korea).

Findings from the first column of each country in Table 10 support my hypothesis

on the relationship between objective class positions and subjective class identification,

suggesting “self-identifications reflect objective circumstances” (Lareau 2008:7). In all

four countries, having higher levels of education and household income is linked to a

tendency to self-identify as a higher-class position (p < .01).

The second column of each country in Table 10 shows that those who self-

identify as the upper class tend to report a higher sense of control in the U.S. and France

(p < .001). The same pattern is found in South Korea (p < .01), but with a lesser degree in

Turkey (p < .10). This finding confirms previous studies reporting people with higher

socioeconomic status are more likely to have a higher sense of control (Ross and

Mirowsky 2013), yet this relationship between one’s structural position and the sense of

control may be less pronounced in collectivistic cultures, especially in Turkey.

As I expected, I find a positive association between the sense of control and grit in

all four country samples. The last column of each country in Table 10 shows that the

sense of control is positively associated with grit in four countries, when controlling for

other sociodemographic factors (p < .001). As I hypothesized, in all four countries,

people who believe they are responsible for their life outcomes (i.e., having a higher

sense of control) tend to report a higher level of grit. This indicates that individuals who

are strong believers in one’s control are more likely to hold gritty dispositions in four

different cultures with varying degree of valuing autonomy. However, class identification

seems not to have a direct effect on the level of grit except for the case of France where

64
subjective class shows a significant, positive association with grit (p < .05). In this aspect,

grit, at face value, seems not to be tied to the one’s subjective class positions.

While the direct effect of class identification on grit is not significant in the

United States, Turkey and South Korea, there is fair amount of indirect effect, via sense

of control, on grit. Table 11 shows direct, indirect and total effects of subjective class on

grit. The percentage of the total effect of class on grit that is mediated by the sense of

control ranges from 24.63% (France) to 88.89% (the United States). While the linkage

between class position and gritty inclination is more apparent in France, in other

countries this linkage is less visible.

Aside from social class variables, age is a significant predictor of grit in all four

countries. People who are older tend to be grittier than younger counterparts across

cultures in our data set, extending earlier findings of Duckworth et al. (2007). Religion is

another interesting predictor that shows a cross-cultural difference between France and

Turkey. Having a religion is negatively associated with developing gritty inclination in

France where 80% of our sample who said they have a religion identified themselves as

Catholic (p < .10). In contrast, in Turkey where 97% of our sample who said they are

religious identified themselves as Muslim, respondents who have a religion tend to report

a higher level of grit than others without a religion (p < .01). This finding in Turkey,

coupled with a negative association between religion and the sense of control (p < .10),

implies that religious affiliation may lessen the beliefs that one can control one’s life

outcomes while it encourages gritty inclination of working hard with passion towards

65
one’s long-term goals in Turkey, suggesting distinctive features of the two psychological

resources in relation to religion in this country. 19

4.6. Discussion

Placing grit within sociological discourse about agency and social stratification,

this chapter examines grit’s relationship with socioeconomic status via the sense of

control across cultures. By analyzing data from four different nations— France, South

Korea, Turkey and the United States, this chapter offers cross-cultural evidence that one’s

socioeconomic status is indirectly tied to the level of grit and the sense of control

mediates this relationship.

One contribution of this chapter is that it empirically demonstrates the connection

between the sense of control and grit. This result supports what Duckworth et al. (2007)

suggested but has never been empirically examined: grit is determined by beliefs about

one’s controls over positive and negative life outcomes. This implies the sense of control

can provide individuals with a motivation to develop grit and encourage them to put

vigorous effort to achieve the desired outcomes, and this, eventually, contributes to

achievements in life. Furthermore, this chapter expands this finding cross-culturally:

having a stronger belief about one’s capability to formulate one’s life closely relates to

having a higher level of grit in France, South Korea, Turkey and the United States, the

four different countries that represent distinct cultural orientations of valuing autonomy.

This cross-cultural evidence supporting the relationship between the sense of control and

19 This data set does not meet the multivariate normality criteria of the data distribution which could
produce biased estimates of standard errors. Since the analysis in this chapter did not correct standard errors
properly, the results in this chapter could be biased. Future analyses should follow the procedure in Chapter
3 and use the Satorra-Bentler χ2 and Robust Standard Errors in the estimation to correct standard errors and
test statistics in my nonnormal data.

66
grit contributes to better understanding of how subjective agency at the cognitive level

can be actually exercised at the behavioral level. This builds on extensive previous

literature (e.g., Ross and Mirowsky 2013) demonstrating that personal control (most

commonly linked to education) influences life outcomes. These findings suggest an

important mechanism for how the processes that link between subjective beliefs and

important life outcomes occur through the possession of grit. However, it appears that

grit is, itself, a bit reliant on control beliefs, and not something that comes directly from

socioeconomic factors.

Another major contribution of this chapter is that it uncovers the indirect linkage

between one’s socioeconomic status and grit. Grit has been highlighted as the useful non-

cognitive resource (Lareau 2015) that anyone can develop (Duckworth 2016), and it is

considered vital to shape better life paths especially for those who come from lower-

income backgrounds, lacking advantageous socioeconomic resources. Findings of this

chapter (i.e., null associations between grit and subjective class in the United States,

South Korea and Turkey) may at face value support presumptions on which previous grit

researchers have relied – grit is not tied to socioeconomic background of individuals, but

anyone can develop grit. Yet, I found one’s socioeconomic position has an indirect effect

on grit via the subjective beliefs about one’s power over life outcomes (i.e., sense of

control). A higher socioeconomic position gained through educational achievement and

higher household income provides individuals with advantageous life trajectories (with

less chances of experiencing failures/adversities but more chances of having favorable

life chances) (Beller and Hout 2006), thereby keeping a higher subjective belief about

one’s power over life outcomes intact (Mirowsky and Ross 2007). This study highlights

67
that this sense of control, in turn, leads to developing grittier attitudes than others,

indirectly mediating advantages of occupying a higher-class position.

This study is not without limitations, however. First, an important limitation of

my analysis stems from a cross-sectional data set on which this study relies. Like my

previous chapter, my theoretically derived hypotheses may operate in the opposite

direction: For example, a grittier attitude towards one’s life may lead to a stronger belief

in one’s agency. Future research with longitudinal data should clarify this causal ordering

between the two psychological measures. In addition, current data set does not include

the full Grit-S scale suggested by Duckworth and Quinn (2009) that contains four items

in each component. The data in this study contain only two items from each component

of grit. I found low Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficients of the overall grit score and

only adequate, not perfect, fit of the measurement model to data, and these findings may

be partly due to this incomplete grit scale. I expect future research with better measures

of grit, the sense of control and social structural positions would provide a clearer picture

of the relationship between socioeconomic status, the sense of control and grit. Despite

these limitations, current data set is the only cross-national data set that is collected from

multiple nations and has important measures for grit, sense of control, social structural

and cultural variables. Future study with better data should contribute to better

understanding about this topic.

Despite the limitations, this chapter takes the first step toward empirically linking

grit to social stratification by explicating factors that affect grit, particularly establishing a

cross-cultural relationship between the sense of control and grit. While grit has been

inscribed into national education policy and even into the PISA, critics and opponents of

68
grit raise concerns about incorporating grit into a metric to grade students, seeing this

trend revolving around grit as a fad (Strauss 2014). This heated debate about grit has

confused parents and educators who have a strong interest in developing children’s

potentials and capacities to achieve better life outcomes. Responding to the urgency of

identifying what grit is, whether it matters and what factors contribute to developing grit,

this study provides significant insights into how structural factors contribute to one’s

level of grit, particularly highlighting the mediating role of the sense of control in four

different cultures.

69
 CHAPTER 5. THE SOCIAL VALUATION OF GRIT

5.1. Background

Hard work, as a crucial pillar of the grit conception, has long been highly valued

in the United States, particularly where meritocracy and American dream are considered

as a ‘civic religion’. Previous research has documented that the support for individual

effort and meritocracy is particularly strong in the United States (Duru-Bellat and Tenret

2012; Kunovich and Slomczynski 2007), for example, as it appeared in a form of the

“rugged individualism” (Kundu 2017). However, we do not know whether people in

other countries also highly value grit and think it as the ultimate source of success as we

think in the United States. Do people in other countries also find a value of grit as in the

United States? Is this recent fad around grit an American thing? In addition, do people in

different structural positions find grit as a valuable trait? Or does the perceived value of

grit differ by one’s structural positions?

The social value of grit, that is, how much people value grit, might vary by

society, and there may be within-society variance in valuing grit as well. Using survey

data collected from South Korea and the United States, this chapter investigates the social

ideology of grit in these two countries, and whether and how the social ideology of grit is

associated with individual development of grit in these two countries. Findings show that

people from less advantaged social statuses tend to perceive grit as key to success more

than those who are from more advantaged statuses in both samples. In addition, people

who believe grit is important for success tend to hold a higher level of the perseverance

dimension of grit than others in both country samples, but not the consistency dimension.

70
5.1.1. Grit as a Desirable Virtue?

The general public’s interests in grit have grown rapidly since Duckworth and her

colleagues have reported grit is highly predictive of success in diverse life domains

(Duckworth et al. 2007; Duckworth and Quinn 2009; Eskreis-Winkler et al. 2014;

Robertson-Kraft and Duckworth 2014).

This public attention stems from (or reflects) a “hard work zeitgeist” (Mendick,

Allen and Harvey 2015:174) that has been found in the emphasis on meritocracy. In the

meritocratic system, hard work adds moral value to one’s achievement by eliciting moral

recognition from others in the society. Duckworth et al. (2007) pointed out those whose

“sustained commitment to their ambitions…[is]…exceptional” (p.1088) often get

respected by others. Stokas (2015) demonstrated how this new concept, grit, has

increasingly enjoyed such immense public popularity (beyond those in academia) in the

United States; she argued that grit is one of the examples that exhibit “a kind of cultural

propaganda that convinces the individual that success is the result of hard, relentless work

regardless of systemic privilege” (Stokas 2015:515) based on the American cultural

history that is mainly built on the purported American dream. Abundant findings that

show grit is predictive of academic and professional success, in turn, seem to consolidate

the meritocratic ideals in the United States, and, again, confirm grit as a desirable trait.

Neoliberalism that increases individualization is another contemporary force that

contributes to cultural ideology that cherishes grit as a valued trait (Littler 2013;

Mendick, Allen and Harvey 2015). Based on the interviews, Mendick, Allen and Harvey

(2015) argued the insecure job market situations that British youth experience after the

71
global economic crisis in 2008 reproduce “neoliberal meritocratic discourses” (p.161),

contributing to the recent rise of meritocratic beliefs.

Taken together, cultural ideologies revolving around American dream and

neoliberal meritocratic ideologies have fueled the rise of enthusiasm for grit. Grit has

been suggested as a desirable virtue or one of the “21st-century competencies” that can

“prepare children and adolescents to thrive in the 21 st century” (Shechtman et al. 2013:v).

5.1.2. Cultural Variance in Valuing Grit: Why the United States and South Korea?

The American Dream has long been integral to Americans’ belief system, and

Americans tend to believe that their hard work will eventually pay off and the United

States is meritocratic (Hitlin and Kwon 2016; Stokas 2015). Even comparing to other

countries, the United States is one of the highest-ranking countries in terms of the popular

support for meritocracy (Kunovich and Slomczynski 2007). These meritocratic ideals

describe a system in which an individual who works hard enough deserves a higher

position in a social hierarchy (Young 1958), and the belief that anyone who works hard

can get ahead is deeply rooted in the Americans’ belief system (Xian and Reynolds

2017). This cultural emphasis on hard work in the United States, or more broadly

Western societies, can be easily traced back to Weber’s classic work on capitalism.

Exploring the advent and operation of the capitalism, Weber ([1904-5] 2002)

demonstrated how Christianity provided people with the values to pursue their own

capitalistic interest and internalize the value of working hard so that people even think

“unwillingness to work is symptomatic of the lack of grace” (p.159). As meritocratic

72
beliefs become as part of the dominant ideology of the general public in the United

States, hard work is considered desirable (Reynolds and Xian 2014).

As briefly mentioned in Chapter 2, valorizing grit and hard work might not be

uniquely American, however. Grit has received growing attention from the general public

not only in the United States, but across the world. As one example, Duckworth’s recent

book, Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance, became an immediate New York

Times bestseller and has been published in a number of different countries including

South Korea (Deahl 2014). This confirms public interest and a global desire to

understand grit. The attitudes of valuing hard work as a virtue that leads to success are

also found in other countries including East Asian countries where Confucianism has

been central to the mentality of East Asians (Xian and Reynolds 2017). South Korea is

one of the countries that previous scholars have researched to figure out how such a

phenomenal economic development could be possible following the Korean War (Kim

and Park 2003). Kim and Park (2003) demonstrated how industrial workers in South

Korea are ideologically cultivated by Korean government particularly through

Confucianism and nationalism: Korean workers are motivated to work hard so that they

can achieve their own economic success and further contribute to prosperity of their

family, company and the country.

Only a few studies have examined the utility of grit measure and conception in

non-Western countries including South Korea (Hwang, Lim and Ha 2017; Mun and Ham

2016), China (Li et al. 2016) and the Philippines (Datu, Valdez and King 2016a, 2016b).

No study, to the best of my knowledge, has investigated how grit is socially valued across

cultures and how the social valuation of grit is linked to one’s level of grit.

73
5.1.3. Within-Cultural Variance in Valuing Grit

Even if hard work is valued universally, some may value hard work and

individual effort more than others. Previous studies have explored heterogeneity in how

much people value meritocratic elements including hard work (Reynolds and Xian 2014;

Shepelak 1989; Xian and Reynolds 2017) and showed that the social position that people

occupy in the social hierarchy is associated with the extent to which they hold

meritocratic beliefs (Barnes 2002; Duru-Bellat and Tenret 2012; Kunovich and

Slomczynski 2007; Reynolds and Xian 2014; Shepelak 1989; Xian and Reynolds 2017).

For example, age, gender, race/ethnicity, religion and socioeconomic status have been

documented as important variables that shape individuals’ attitudes towards meritocratic

beliefs, though the findings are mixed. Duru-Bellat and Tenret (2012) found older people

and those with a higher education tend to hold meritocratic beliefs (i.e., perceived

meritocracy) but these effects are not always significant in different countries. Other

studies found younger people (Reynolds and Xian 2014; Xian and Reynolds 2017) and

females (Kunovich and Slomczynski 2007; Reynolds and Xian 2014; Xian and Reynolds

2017) in the United States show stronger beliefs in meritocracy. In addition, some others

reported null findings regarding gender in the United States (Barnes 2002). Also there is

cross-cultural difference: Xian and Reynolds (2017) found that while the more educated

in the United States tend to hold stronger meritocratic beliefs, education does not have

significant effect in China.

One of the main foci of prior works on the relationship between social positions

and meritocratic beliefs is closely linked to a research tradition that examines the role of

74
education in supporting or rejecting dominant ideologies of the society (Baer and

Lambert 1982). This line of research argues that people with higher education tend to

show stronger beliefs in the importance of hard work; longer years of education socialize

them to internalize dominant ideologies such as meritocratic ideology because education

as a formal institution is the place where dominant ideologies are disseminated and

cultivated (Baer and Lambert 1982; Bourdieu and Passeron [1970] 1990; Shepelak 1989).

In line with this “socialization hypothesis” (Baer and Lambert 1982; Duru-Bellat and

Tenret 2012), the legitimation argument (Shepelak 1989) claims that people from

advantaged background tend to support the meritocratic values as a dominant ideology

because it provides justification for existing inequalities (Shepelak 1989).20 In contrast,

those from lower class background may value grit to a lesser degree because they are

more likely to be exposed to the situations that hard work does not work. This “underdog

thesis” (Xian and Reynolds 2017) suggests that because of the frequent exposure to the

situations in which hard work is not rewarded (e.g., discrimination), those of lower status

may be more likely to reject meritocratic beliefs. Following this tradition, I can expect

that people of higher social status, compared to those of lower status, to value grit as a

virtue because they are more socialized to hold meritocratic beliefs and less likely to

experience discriminative situations where they observe individual effort is not rewarded.

An alternative prediction may expect people from disadvantaged background to

value grit more than people from advantaged background because those with higher

education may know that what matters to success in their society involves structural

advantages rather than personal hard work. The “instruction hypothesis” (Duru-Bellat

20
As for the relationship between education and support for hard work, it is also plausible that the
relationship operates in the opposite direction: people who believe in meritocracy invest more in their own
education and thus achieve a higher level of education, as Duru-Bellat and Tenret (2012) pointed out.

75
and Tenret 2012) or “enlightenment hypothesis” (Baer and Lambert 1982) supports this

prediction. That is, those from upper class background may be more familiar with

structural explanations regarding the sources of success in their society (e.g., structural

inequalities including discrimination). They may learn more about the structural

frameworks for understanding success and adopt it more rather than the individualistic

framework which attributes successes and failures to individuals. This leads to prediction

that people of higher social status would be less likely to value grit as key to getting

ahead in the society.

Previous studies on perceived meritocracy have documented mixed findings about

the relationship between one’s social structural position and valuing of hard work. Some

researchers found those with a higher level of education (Kunovich and Slomczynski

2007; Xian and Reynolds 2017) tend to hold a stronger belief in meritocracy. In contrast,

some other researchers failed to find consistent evidence regarding the role of structural

positions in perceived meritocracy cross-culturally (Duru-Bellat and Tenret 2012).

Barnes (2002) found that despite structural barriers that individuals from high poverty

areas would confront with, residents in poor urban neighborhoods also hold strong

meritocratic beliefs such that hard work (along with personal education), rather than

ascriptive variables such as race and ethnicity, gender and family background, is

important for getting ahead. This set of mixed findings suggests further investigation of

how much people in different structural positions perceive the importance of grit.

While most of the previous studies have focused on the social locations that

individuals occupy in the society, this chapter argues for adding a sense of control in the

formula to understand what makes people to value gritty components. As one example,

76
this chapter suggests individuals’ perceptions about one’s agency over achievement (i.e.,

a sense of control) as a potential motivation for individuals to believe hard work is crucial

for success in life. As described in Chapter 2, a sense of control is a learned expectation

that a person controls her or his own life outcomes (Mirowsky and Ross 1991). Drawing

on the finding in Chapter 4 (that shows a possitive association between the sense of

control and grit), I argue that a sense of control motivates people to think that gritty

attitudes are important for goal attainment. If a person thinks that her success is

dependent on external factors out of her control (i.e., a lower sense of control), it is less

likely that she believes in the value of hard work and makes commitment towards

something she desires for. However, if she believes in her personal control over her

success (i.e., a higher sense of control), this belief may motivate her to find the utility of

grit to achieve better life outcomes, which, in turn, develops gritty disposition (Kwon

2017). Because studies of agency have almost entirely relied on this sense of control (see

Chapters 2 and 4 for further discussion), we do not know how this established literature

influences the development of grit, theoretically the behavioral aspect of agency that has

not been properly conceptualized or modeled.

5.2. Research Questions and Analysis Plan

In this chapter, I explore individuals’ perceptions about how gritty disposition is

socially valued in two countries, the United States and South Korea, aside from

individuals’ perceptions about their own levels of grittiness, and test if the social value of

grit contributes to understanding variances in grit. I intend to address four major research

questions guided by prior empirical works on grit and perceived value of hard work.

77
Research Question 1. Do people in the United States and South Korea consider grit as a

valued trait leading to success?

This first research question stands in the tradition that studies perceived value of

meritocracy, hard work and effort (Duru-Bellat and Tenret 2012; Reynolds and Xian

2014; Xian and Reynolds 2017; Young 1958). Building on prior works on perceived

meritocracy in the United States (Barnes 2002; Reynolds and Xian 2014) and literature

on Confucianism and work ethic in South Korea (Kim and Park 2003), I hypothesize that

respondents in both American and Korean samples will value grit as a virtue that

contributes to success in life.

Hypothesis 1. Respondents in two country samples will commonly see grit as key

to getting ahead in life.

Research Question 2. Do people in different structural positions hold different values

regarding grit?

Who believes in the power of grit? Does everyone in two countries value grit to

the same extent regardless of their social positions? I hypothesize that there is within-

nation variation in the social valuation of grit. Drawing on previous literature that

demonstrated people in different socioeconomic status tend to hold different levels of

perceived value of meritocratic elements (Duru-Bellat and Tenret 2012; Kunovich and

Slomczynski 2007; Reynolds and Xian 2014; Xian and Reynolds 2017), I intend to test

two hypotheses about the relationship between socioeconomic status and perceived value

of grit.

78
 Hypothesis 2A. People from more advantaged background will be more likely to

show stronger beliefs in the importance of grit.

This hypothesis is in line with the socialization hypothesis (Baer and Lambert

1982; Duru-Bellat and Tenret 2012) and the legitimation argument (Shepelak 1989) that

argue for the positive association between a person’s social status and valuing

meritocratic elements. Previous studies that support this hypothesis argued that people

from upper-class background tend to value meritocratic elements including hard work.

On the other hand, according to the underdog thesis (Xian and Reynolds 2017), people

from less advantaged background are less likely to value the power of hard work because

they experience the situations where hard work is not rewarded more frequently than

those from more advantaged background. These previous studies lead us to expect a

positive relationship between individuals’ socioeconomic status and their beliefs in grit-

related elements as key to success.

Hypothesis 2B. People from more advantaged background will be more likely to

show weaker beliefs in the importance of grit for getting ahead.

In contrast, the instruction hypothesis (Duru-Bellat and Tenret 2012) and

enlightenment hypothesis (Baer and Lambert 1982) predict a negative relationship

between individuals’ socioeconomic status and their valuing of grit. A higher education

may teach individuals more about the existence of discrimination and structural

inequalities, thus people with a higher status may be more likely to be skeptical about the

utility of an individual’s hard work and effort than those with a lower status.

79
Research Question 3. Do people with a higher sense of control tend to value grit more

than others?

Another potential element that is closely associated with the valuation of grit is

personal beliefs about one’s control over life outcomes. Previous studies have directly or

indirectly suggested a positive relationship between the personal sense of control and grit

(Duckworth et al. 2007; Kwon 2017). Building on prior work, we can predict that an

individual who is a strong believer in her power that authors her life course may also

believe her hard work will lead to success in her life. In contrast, those who think their

life is authored by other people or external factors out of their control may not be able to

find a value of personal hard work. Thus, I expect to see a positive association between

the sense of control and the valuation of grit. This prediction leads us to imagine a person

who believes in one’s agency will show stronger support for strenuous effort and

determination as key to success.21

Hypothesis 3. People with a higher sense of control will be more likely to value

grit as key to success in life.

Research Question 4. Does the extent to which people value grit as a virtue influence

their development of grit?

21
The sense of control and the valuation of grit are correlated, but not identical: Correlation scores between
the two are statistically significant, but only moderate (0.31 in the American sample and 0.33 in the Korean
sample). This low-to-moderate correlation implies that a person can be a strong believer in control over life
outcomes, but she does not necessarily find a value of grit. Even if she thinks that her life depends on her,
she may think in general personal effort does not result in success in the society. In this sense, these two
indicators are positively associated with each other, but distinct.

80
 How people perceive the value of grit may be a potential predictor of their level

of grit. It is not difficult to imagine a person who believes in the value of grit also

develops gritty disposition.

Hypothesis 4. People who value grit as a virtue will be more likely to report a

higher level of grit.

5.3. Methods

5.3.1. Data

This study is based on the same data used in Chapter 3, cross-cultural data

collected in two countries: South Korea and the United States (for detailed information

about data, for example, data collection and sampling methods, see Section 3.2.1). After

list-wise deletion by key variables, the final sample size for this study is 452 in South

Korea and 523 in the United States (see Table 12).

5.3.2. Measures

The survey includes measures of the valuation of grit, the Grit-S Scale

(Duckworth and Quinn 2009), the sense of control (Mirowsky and Ross 1991), and a set

of basic demographics questions.

The Valuation of Grit: I developed a novel measure to investigate how much

people value grit as a virtue, by modifying the question originally taken from the

International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). Respondents are asked to answer the

question: “Please tick one box for each of these to show how important you think it is for

getting ahead in life.” In addition to existing items that are already included in the ISSP

81
question (e.g., hard work, a wealthy family, political connection, etc.), I included three

additional items to measure both the perseverance and passion dimensions of grit:

perseverance, determination, passion/commitment to long-term goals. To create a

variable for the valuation of grit, I averaged four items that are related to the grit concept

(hard work, perseverance, determination and passion/commitment to long-term goals).

The final scale ranges from 1 “not important at all” to 5 “extremely important,” a higher

score indicates a higher valuation of grit. The observed internal reliability of this measure

had a Cronbach’s α of 0.86 for the American sample and 0.79 for the Korean sample. 22

Grit: The Grit Scale (Grit-S) developed by Duckworth and her colleagues

(Duckworth and Quinn 2009) are used in the data analysis. Based on the measurement

test results in Chapter 3 that support the two-factor structure of the grit scale and suggest

using two separate dimensions of grit, I use the perseverance score and the consistency

score separately. Scores for perseverance and consistency are calculated by averaging

four items under each dimension. A higher score indicates to a higher level of each

dimension of grit (αperseverance=0.78 and αconsistency=0.85 for the American sample;

αperseverance=0.78 and αconsistency=0.72 for the Korean sample).

Sense of Control: The sense of control measure that was used in Chapter 3 is also

included in the analysis. The internal reliability of the Sense of Control scale had a

Cronbach’s α of 0.71 for the American sample and 0.57 for the Korean sample.

22
I conducted MGCFA (Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis) using Mplus 7.4 to test measurement
invariance for this new construct, the valuation of grit, across two country samples to make sure that
respondents in two different cultures interpret and answer the survey questions that are designed to measure
the valuation of grit in the same way. Using the cut-off criteria suggested by Cheung and Rensvold (2002),
I found that the measurement model for the valuation of grit achieves metric invariance (ΔCFI* < -0.01),
indicating that Americans and Koreans in my sample interpret the survey questions on the valuation of grit
in the same way.

82
 Social Structural Positions: Social structural positions are measured by personal

education, household income, subjective class identification as well as parental

education. Detailed information about personal education and household income is

described in Chapter 3. Parental education as a variable is created by choosing the highest

education level of parents. For example, if a respondent reported her father attained a

college degree and her mother attained a Master’s degree, her parental education is

recoded as Master’s degree. In addition to these objective measures of the structural

positions, dummies for subjective class identification (“lower class,” “middle class,” and

“upper class”) are also included in the analysis.

Demographics: I control for several demographic variables that were shown to be

related to the level of perceived meritocracy by previous research. Age, gender (1 = male,

0 = female), white (only in the U.S. model), marital status (1 = married, 0 = not married),

religiosity (ranges from 0 “not religious at all” to 10 “very religious”), and Christian (1 =

Christian, 0 = other religions or no religion) are included in the analysis.

5.4. Results

Figure 2 shows that all grit-related items (i.e., hard work, perseverance,

determination, and passion towards long-term goals) are, on average, highly valued as a

virtue that leads to success in both countries.23 Four items that capture the grit

conceptions are combined as a one factor (Cronbach’s Alphas are 0.86 in the United

States and 0.79 in South Korea) by being averaged into one variable, valuation of grit

(M=4.38, SD=0.63 in the U.S.; M=4.03, SD=0.59 in South Korea), for the next analysis.

23
In both samples, less than 4% of respondents selected these items are not important for getting ahead in
life, indicating a broad support for gritty components as key to success.

83
 Grit seems to be thought as the path to success in these two country samples. This

does not mean that every respondent in two country samples all equally values grit as a

virtue, however. Previous research has informed us that some people may value hard

work, for example, as a central component of grit, more than others (Duru-Bellat and

Tenret 2012; Xian and Reynolds 2017).

Table 13 presents multivariate models predicting how much people value grit as

key to getting ahead in life. For each country, Model 1 tests if social structural positions

such as personal education, household income, subjective class and parental education

are associated with valuing grit as key to success in life, testing Hypotheses 2A and 2B.

In Model 2, I evaluate the novel question of whether personal sense of control is

associated with how much people value grit components (Hypothesis 3).

In Model 1, I find American respondents who identify themselves as lower class,

compared to those who self-identify as middle class, tend to believe that grit is key to

getting ahead in life (p < .05). Similarly, in South Korea, respondents whose parental

education is lower are more likely to hold the meritocratic beliefs than those with a

higher parental education (p < .05). In Model 2, I found these effects remain significant

even controlling for another strong predictor, the sense of control. These results in two

country samples suggest that people from less advantaged social status tend to buy

meritocratic ideologies more than those who are from more advantaged background,

leaning more towards the instruction/enlightenment hypothesis (Hypothesis 2B) than the

socialization/legitimation hypothesis (Hypothesis 2A).

Supporting Hypothesis 3, Model 2 shows that in both country samples,

respondents with stronger beliefs in one’s personal control are more likely to recognize

84
the importance of grit for getting ahead, even controlling for sociodemographic variables

(p < .05). Having a higher sense of control may thus motivate people to find the utility of

grit as a virtue leading to success in both countries.

In terms of demographic variables, I find American respondents who are females,

religious and Christians are more likely to believe that grit-related factors are linked to

success in life, supporting Weber’s classic work on the Protestant Ethic (Weber [1904-5]

2002) which argued the religious beliefs impose a duty of hard-working to Christians as

well as previous empirical findings that showed females (Kunovich and Slomczynski

2007; Reynolds and Xian 2014; Xian and Reynolds 2017) tend to hold stronger

meritocratic beliefs than males (p < .05). However, I fail to find the same

sociodemographic effects on the valuation of grit, net of other variables, in the Korean

sample.

Table 14 evaluates an additional question about whether how much people value

grit as a virtue is associated with their levels of grit (perseverance and consistency),

controlling for other sociodemographic variables as well as one’s sense of control (a

strong predictor of the valuation of grit). The effect of how much respondents value grit

as a virtue on the level of perseverance is significant in both samples (p < .05) while the

valuation of grit is not significantly associated with the level of consistency (Model 4).

This suggests that in both countries, people who believe grit is a valuable virtue are more

likely to report a higher level of perseverance, controlling for other socioeconomic and

psychological variables. However, how much people value grit as a virtue seems not to

be closely linked to their levels of consistency in both country samples.

85
 In both samples, the sense of control operates as a strong correlate of both

dimensions of grit. People who believe they are responsible for their life outcomes (i.e.,

having a higher sense of control) tend to report higher levels of grit components (p < .05).

This is in line with the findings in Chapter 4 using four-nations data, implying that

individuals who are strong believers in one’s control are more likely to develop gritty

dispositions of working hard with passion to pursue their desired long-term goals.

5.5. Discussion

Previous empirical studies of grit have largely been focused on the relationship

between grit and high achievement/retention in many different domains, ranging from

educational to professional fields (Duckworth et al. 2007; Duckworth et al. 2011;

Eskreis-Winkler et al. 2014; Robertson-Kraft and Duckworth 2014; Strayhorn 2014).

Little attention has been given to cultural contexts of grit, leaving grit in a contextual

vacuum.

This chapter presents evidence that grit is valued as key to success in two

different cultures, the United States and South Korea, however there is within-culture

variance in this valuation that overshadows supposed cultural differences: people from

less advantaged social statuses tend to value grit as a virtue more than those who are from

more advantaged backgrounds in both country samples. This finding supports the

instruction hypothesis (Duru-Bellat and Tenret 2012) and the enlightenment hypothesis

(Baer and Lambert 1982) that argue for a negative relationship between social status and

perceived value of hard work. People from higher social status may learn more about

structural inequalities, and they are thus more likely to hold skeptical attitudes toward the

86
utility of an individual’s hard work for success. This negative association also implies

that people from lower status background tend to support meritocratic ideologies more

than people from higher status background. System Justification Theory (see Jost, Banaji

and Nosek 2004; Jost and Hunyady 2005 for reviews) also argues that lower class people

evidence greater support for the existing social system despite the expected costs to them

because people are motivated to rationalize the world around them as fair or legitimate

(Jost and Hunyady 2005). I speculate that one possible reason for this negative

association between status and valuing grit is that those from lower status background

may believe the only way they could move upward is through personal effort because

their objective conditions do not help their success and further upward mobility. In

addition, people who hold an agentic belief (i.e., sense of control) tend to give a higher

value to grit than those who do not believe in one’s control over life outcomes.

I also found that how much people value grit as a virtue is closely linked to their

level on the perseverance dimension of grit. Previous studies about meritocracy have

illustrated how people’s beliefs in meritocracy contribute to the reproduction of the

current stratification system. My findings show that people who believe in grit’s utility in

success tend to report a higher level of perseverance in both country samples. This may

imply that the endorsement of meritocracy in both countries helps a person to believe that

hard work brings success, and this belief, in turn, encourages her to hold a higher level of

perseverance than others. For example, Laurin, Fitzsimons and Kay (2011) found that

low status people who believe in meritocratic fairness tend to persist longer, invest more

resources (e.g., effort and time), and be motivated to work harder in pursuit of long-term

goals. Thus, a stronger belief in the function of gritty orientations may motivate people to

87
hold a gritty attitude towards their own life goals, which in turn contributes to

longitudinal life course successes. Perhaps this is one avenue where the well-studied

concept of personal control gets translated into concrete action steps.

An important limitation of my analyses stems from a cross-sectional design of the

data set, as described in the discussion of Chapters 3 and 4. Like Chapters 3 and 4, the

causality of my theoretically derived hypotheses plausibly work in the opposite direction,

something that might be strongly tested using longitudinal data, were they available. For

example, a grittier person can value grit more than others because the person already has

grit. In addition, while this study finds support for the instruction hypothesis, I could not

investigate specific reasons why people with a higher status background find less values

of grit or vice versa. Future research should demonstrate this with appropriate measures,

building on this first dataset to simultaneously gather information on grit, culture and

structural position.

Despite these limitations, this study takes the first step toward empirically

drawing cultural, sociodemographic and social psychological profiles of the social

valuation of grit. Past research on grit has been heavily centered on building the linkage

between grit and achievement in diverse domains and confirming the predictive power of

grit. The findings from previous grit literature, which show grit relates to achievement,

suggest a critical need to demonstrate the social structural and cultural underpinnings that

shape this beneficial psychological component. Grit is not a theoretical replacement for

the much more sociologically popular measure of personal control, and I demonstrate that

it is not an empirical replacement, either. Rather, it forms an important bridge getting

from thought to action (Mische 2009), how those well-established agency beliefs about

88
one’s own control capacity get oriented toward longer-term goals. Thus, a next step of

this research will be to clarify the mechanisms by which grit relates to psychological,

structural and cultural antecedents including the valuation of grit, the sense of control and

sociodemographics, using advanced statistical methods. I expect this advanced research

will contribute to a rich foundation for the knowledge with regard to grit and its structural

and cultural underpinnings, placing grit in the proper context.

89
 CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION24

This dissertation is the first attempt to bring grit into sociological discussion of

agency and social stratification, exploring some of its basic measurement properties while

also locating grit within cultural and structural contexts. Existing psychological research

has contributed to our understanding that grit helps people to achieve better outcomes at

the workplace, the spelling bee competition, school and military academy (Duckworth et

al. 2007; Duckworth et al. 2011; Eskreis-Winkler et al. 2014). Despite this contribution,

prior research has largely omitted grit’s structural and cultural underpinnings. For

example, whether grit is socially valued as a desirable virtue in other cultures and

whether grit is tied to one’s socioeconomic positions across cultures are unaddressed

questions. By arguing that the inclusion of grit in sociological discussion contributes to

the existing research on agency and social stratification, this dissertation attempts to shed

light on grit’s potential contributions to sociological understanding.

Pointing out that existing research on agency focuses primarily on the concept as

a set of subjective beliefs, this dissertation suggests that grit can be a potential measure

for an additional component of agency that addresses how this subjective understanding

is translated into influencing one’s life outcomes. Grit is closely linked to subjective

beliefs about agency theoretically (Chapter 2) and empirically (Chapters 3, 4 and 5), but

operates distinctly from the existing, most common measure of subjective agency (i.e.,

sense of control). Findings from Chapters 4 and 5 confirm that people who have a higher

level of subjective agency (i.e., sense of control) are more likely to report a higher level

24
Some parts of this conclusion were published in Sociology Compass. Detailed bibliography information
is as follows:
Kwon, Hye Won. 2017. “The Sociology of Grit: Exploring Grit as a Sociological Variable and its Potential
Role in Social Stratification.” Sociology Compass 11(12):1-13.

90
of grit in four different countries (France, South Korea, Turkey and the United States).

However, grit (more specifically, the perseverance dimension of grit) is distinct from the

sense of control, as it explains unique variance in subjective well-being beyond the

measure of subjective agency in the United States and South Korea (Chapter 3). Grit and

subjective belief are closely related but can be distinguished: as previously mentioned,

the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare provides us with a classic example of having a

higher sense of control but lower grit—the Hare.

Findings in Chapter 3 which relied on the Grit-S scale to measure grit in two

different countries have suggested us that grit is understood as having two sub-

components, perseverance of effort and consistency of interest, not as the global construct

as Duckworth suggested (Duckworth et al. 2007; Duckworth and Quinn 2009). Among

these two sub-dimensions, the perseverance dimension of grit (rather than consistency) is

more useful in predicting subjective well-being in the United States and South Korea as it

explains unique variance in subjective well-being that previously well-established

psychological factors do not capture (sense of control in South Korea, sense of control

and conscientiousness in the United States). This finding may support previous studies

that argue for using two grit dimensions separately instead of the overall grit composite

and further suggest that perseverance has primary utility of the grit conception (Credé,

Tynan and Harms 2017; Datu, Valdez and King 2016a; Disabato, Goodman, and

Kashdan 2018). Future study should continue to test the grit conception using diverse

samples, cross-culturally.

Grit contributes to uncovering an additional mechanism that connects social

stratification and individual psychological functioning. Stratification and social

91
psychology researchers have established many ways that structural positions influence

one’s psychological processes, thereby reproducing concurrent structural advantages and

disadvantages (Kohn 1989; Kohn et al. 1990; Sewell, Haller and Portes 1969).

Psychological evidence that grit is linked to better educational and occupational

outcomes implies that grit is one of the beneficial psychological resources for

constructing advantageous life trajectories, but one that is rarely discussed in

stratification research. Linking the findings in Chapter 4 to the findings in Chapter 5,

even though the two chapters rely on different data (i.e., different grit measures and

different samples), I argue that while people who are from lower class background tend

to support cultural ideology regarding grit (i.e., grit as a virtue that leads to success in

life), people from upper class background, rather than those from lower class

background, tend to attain a higher level of grit via a higher level of sense of control.

These findings gain more power as the association between one’s socioeconomic status,

sense of control, the valuation of grit, and grit is found across countries.

The empirical finding in Chapter 4 may be somewhat surprising to the general

public and psychologists who believe that grit is a class-free, idiosyncratic psychological

function that everyone can develop. Unlike this public discourse, my finding uncovers

grit’s indirect linkage to social structural antecedents, via sense of control that has already

been well-established as a link between structural antecedents and achievement. This

sheds light on the possibility that grit, a concept often believed to be a potential equalizer

for those from lower social statuses to overcome their objective barriers for upward

mobility and ensures the cultural belief that every student can thrive if they just work

hard enough, may in part contribute to reproducing the advantages of occupying higher

92
socioeconomic status. Yet, I also acknowledge the fact that the total effect of

socioeconomic status on the level of grit in the United States, South Korea and Turkey is

small and this may weaken this possibility. This calls for further investigation on the

potential mediating role of grit in status attainment.

In addition, cross-cultural finding of this evidence across four countries (France,

South Korea, Turkey and the United States) consolidates the indirect linkage between

socioeconomic status and grit through the positive associations with subjective beliefs

about agency (the sense of control). Given the four countries that I used in my study are

the countries that previous studies considered as representing distinctive cultures such as

the Individualism vs. Collectivism (Hofstede 1980, 2001) as well as important value

dimensions of the materialism vs. post-materialism (Inglehart and Abramson 1999), this

cross-culturally consistent finding adds more power to my argument regarding the

relationship of socioeconomic status with subjective agency and grit: the personal sense

of control plays a core, consistent role in mediating the relationship between

socioeconomic status and grit both in societies where autonomy and independence are

valued (France and the United States) and in societies where these components are less

valued (South Korea and Turkey). Future research should investigate this relationship in

other countries to flesh out whether this association is also held in other types of cultures.

Prior grit research has dismissed the cultural contexts that grit is socially valued—

third-order beliefs about the importance a society holds for grit as a virtue, apart from the

individual valuation of grit. Chapter 5 attempts to place grit in the well-established

research tradition that examines perceived meritocracy by empirically investigating the

social valuation of grit in two different countries, South Korea and the United States.

93
While grit is highly valued in these two countries, and is a prominent part of the

important national narratives, it is more highly valued among people from lower

socioeconomic status, shedding light on the within-cultural variance in the valuation of

grit that is often overshadowed by cultural difference. This may sound counterintuitive, in

a sense that lower-status people believe more in the importance of personal effort rather

than accusing structural inequalities. Yet, it is in line with what System Justification

Theory has long claimed: researchers in this research tradition have documented various

counterintuitive evidences such as the endorsement of meritocratic ideology among those

from lower social status and conservative attitudes of working-class population (see Jost,

Banaji, and Nosek 2004; Jost and Hunyady 2005 for reviews). This theory argues that

current system of social stratification can be maintained because existing social

arrangement is supported not only by those at the top of social hierarchy who benefit

from the existing social arrangement, but also by those at the bottom of social hierarchy

(Jost and Hunyady 2005). In this sense, my finding of lower-status people’s higher

valuation of personal effort and determination (gritty components) may serve as another

example for understanding how existing stratification system maintains the status quo

across cultures.

In total, in this dissertation, I argue the sociological examination of grit

contributes to an integrated understanding of grit as a structurally and culturally rooted

construct. Grit is a potential bridge between sociological studies of stratification and

psychological understandings of the individual, a socially-shaped aspect of agency

shaped through structural and cultural locations that helps to reproduce – and potentially

alleviate – structural inequality across generations.

94
 Theoretically and methodologically, I do not think grit could be in place of the

traditional measure of subjective agency (sense of control), or vice versa. Instead, I argue

grit could be an additional psychological resource that shows how one’s beliefs and

thoughts can be enacted in a behavioral form of exerting agency in one’s life. We need

both grit and the sense of control to better understand the role of human agency, a

complicated construct that involves cognition and temporality (see Emirbayer and Mische

1998). Grit may operate as a measurable “engine” when one holds beliefs in one’s own

agentic capacity (towards oneself; i.e., sense of control), and thus helps explain how the

commonly measured cognitions link to goal attainment across time that serves to locate

individuals within the stratification structure. Kundu (2016) suggested that grit itself is

not sufficient for success; incorporating subjective orientations about agency is important

to foster grit, particularly among students from disadvantaged background (see also

Kundu and Noguera 2014). To develop grit, one may invest more in developing the sense

of control as it motivates valorizing grit as well as gritty attitudes.

In what ways could we develop a sense of control and, subsequently, grit?

Drawing on classic social psychological studies, I could speculate on the sources of

developing the sense of control and grit. Family is one of the important sources where

people could develop agency (Gecas 1989; Hitlin and Kwon 2016), and previous research

has informed us that upper-class parents tend to teach their children to develop particular

dispositions, skills and knowledge that are beneficial for attaining better life outcomes

(Bourdieu 1984; Calarco 2011; Lareau and Calarco 2012; Lewis, Ross and Mirowsky

1999; Pearlin and Kohn 1966). In societies where gritty components are highly valued,

parents may seek to teach their children grit as one of the important skills or dispositions.

95
In addition, children from higher-class families may be able to draw a smoother life path

because they have less chance to encounter negative life experiences that may hurt their

beliefs about their personal agency (Hitlin and Kwon 2016; Mirowsky and Ross 2007)

and subsequent grit. Relying on his qualitative findings, Kundu (2017) argued that grit

may be accumulated or strengthened as people experience successes throughout their life

course. Thus, grit may be a psychological resource that can be developed, maintained,

strengthened, or reduced along with agentic beliefs throughout one’s life course

experiences.

While I argue that grit is indirectly tied to one’s socioeconomic status, I do not

argue that only higher-status people can have grit. Kundu’s (2017) qualitative research

has shown that students who are from low-income household have higher levels of grit,

which then helps them achieve upward mobility despite their structural disadvantages,

arguing that “success is possible over wide variability in disadvantages” (Kundu 2017:4).

While findings in Chapter 4 suggest that one’s socioeconomic status has an indirect,

positive association with the level of grit through the sense of control, Chapter 5 implies

that grit is a more valued resource among those from lower statuses than those from

higher statuses. People with a higher status background have a higher possibility of

reporting a higher level of grit through their stronger beliefs in personal control, yet oddly

may not need as much grit in their lives. They are less likely to encounter severe

adversities or setbacks throughout their life courses compared to those from lower

statuses, and more likely to have other useful resources (e.g., economic or social capital)

that they can utilize to overcome those setbacks. This dissertation puts a caveat on the

popular discourse that has located grit in a contextual vacuum, dismissing potential

96
influences of social structural and cultural forces. As previously mentioned, the popular

tendency to attribute low achievement to lack of grit may fuel the ‘blaming the victim’

attitudes that ‘culture of poverty’ and ‘oppositional culture’ debates have sparked long

ago (Hitlin and Kwon 2016; Kundu 2017). That is, assuming that grit is a class-free

resource (i.e., not being related to one’s structural locations and opportunities) and that

grit is a sole factor that determines one’s achievement in life may contribute to the notion

regarding blaming victims, attributing disadvantages of people in poverty (or students

with underachievement) to lack of their own effort, not structural disadvantages.

This dissertation is not without limitations, many of which are mentioned in

previous chapters. One of the major limitations is, of course, the causality issue. Since

two data sets used in this dissertation are cross-sectional, the causal direction of the

relationships is not empirically clarified. Even though the hypothesized relationships

between socioeconomic status, the sense of control, the valuation of grit, and grit are

strongly based on theoretical examination, future research could clearly figure out causal

linkages between these variables using longitudinal data. Future research should examine

causal linkages between social structure and individual psychology, for example, whether

a person from a high-class background tends to develop higher levels of sense of control

and grit, which in turn contribute to higher levels of achievement.

Another potential direction to study structure, culture and grit could be to examine

whether the relationship between social structural position and individual agency is

stronger in cultures characterized by high levels of valuing agency and autonomy than

other countries (i.e., the moderating effect of person-culture fit), using international data.

Even though Chapter 4 tried to show cultural contexts of valuing agency and Chapter 5

97
tried to show cultural background of valuing gritty dispositions in different countries, I

could not incorporate those cultural measures into my statistical analysis to test the effect

of cultural orientations on the level of grit. Future research with multinational data could

contribute to better understanding of cultural underpinnings of grit.

One future research direction related to the grit measure should include

developing and testing new measures of grit. For sociology, the theoretical concept has a

good deal of utility for stratification and life course scholars; the empirical development,

however, needs further exploration to ensure it is, in fact, a meaningful and useful

construct. For example, Datu, Yuen and Chen (2017) proposed for a new scale of grit, the

Triarchic Model of Grit Scale (TMGS), which includes additional facet of the grit

conception—adaptability to situations, and validated the scale in a collectivistic context

(using the sample of Filipino college students). Another possible direction to better

measure grit could be to develop vignette questions (see Kwon 2017 for further

discussion about the use of vignette). One of the major limitations that current grit scale

has stems from the self-report nature of the scale. For example, social desirability bias

would incorrectly boost the level of grit particularly among respondents who live in a

society where hard work is socially valued. Although vignette questions cannot perfectly

remove potential biases coming from the self-report measure, they might place grit in

proper contexts and ask how the respondent would behave in a hypothesized situation so

that it better measures the “behavioral” dimension of agency than the subjective, self-

report measure of grit. All of these will have to suffice for typical forms of sociological

data gathering, where observing behavioral measures of grit would be difficult.

98
 Grit is a potentially useful concept for sociology, I argue, because it guides

investigation into important sociological questions about social stratification across

cultures. Grit illuminates an additional step to translate one’s socioeconomic advantages

into better life outcomes, via sense of control. The cross-culturally consistent patterns of

the relationship between socioeconomic status, the sense of control and grit and the

association between grit (more specifically perseverance) and subjective well-being

beyond the sense of control may suggest that the role and the utility of grit is not only

limited to the United States, but also applicable to France, South Korea and Turkey.

Valuing grit is not uniquely American; grit is highly desirable in South Korea as well.

Instead, what makes differences in valuing grit among individuals is one’s social

structural location: those who are at the bottom of the social hierarchy are more likely to

endorse the value of grit more than others in the society. In sum, these findings address

core sociological concerns about how stratification is maintained and reinforced in the

society across cultures.

Theoretically the concept of grit that contains both dimensions, perseverance and

passion towards long-term goals, contributes to a better understanding of how subjective

beliefs can be translated into actual behaviors to pursue life goals. However, my

measurement test casts doubt on the utility of the passion dimension of grit, consistent

with previous literature on grit (Credé, Tynan and Harms 2017; Datu, Valdez and King

2016a), as this facet of grit fails to show its distinctive role in predicting subjective well-

being and in the relationship with beliefs in meritocracy. Thus, the perseverance facet of

grit may be more useful than the passion facet of grit, to address sociological questions

about subjective well-being and perceived meritocracy. Given potential contributions of

99
the grit conception to our understanding about crucial sociological concerns, further

investigation to improve the measurement of grit, particularly the passion dimension of

grit, may be the most urgent step for researchers who are interested in this useful concept.

100
 APPENDIX A. TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1. Demographic Statistics

U.S.A. (N =533) South Korea (N=475)

Variable Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
Age 46.65 16.15 18 85 42.31 13.70 18 82
Male 0.50 0.50 0 1 0.50 0.50 0 1
White 0.83 0.37 0 1
College 0.44 0.50 0 1 0.59 0.49 0 1
Household Income 5.90 3.16 1 11 5.89 2.95 1 11
Religious 5.30 3.54 0 10 3.65 3.09 0 10
Married 0.48 0.50 0 1 0.53 0.50 0 1
Happiness 7.20 2.07 0 10 5.95 2.03 0 10
Life Satisfaction 6.85 2.34 0 10 5.65 2.05 0 10

101
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach’s Alphas of Key Variables

U.S.A. (N=533) South Korea (N=475)

Variable M SD Min Max α M SD Min Max α
Grit-S 3.54 0.65 1 5 0.74 3.19 0.57 1 4.875 0.75
Perseverance 3.79 0.80 1 5 0.78 3.23 0.74 1 5 0.77
Consistency 3.29 0.95 1 5 0.85 3.14 0.70 1 5 0.71
Sense of Control 0.57 0.57 -1.25 2 0.70 0.43 0.41 -0.875 2 0.57
Conscientiousness 3.89 0.70 1 5 0.86 3.45 0.58 1 5 0.85
Well-being 7.03 2.07 0 10 0.87 5.80 1.95 0 10 0.91
Note. α denotes Cronbach's alpha coefficient.

102
Table 3. Fit Indices of the Hypothesized Models of Grit

S-Bχ2 df p CFI* TLI* RMSEA*

American Sample (N=533)
1. Unidimensional model 704.168 20 0.000 0.538 0.353 0.253
2. Two-factor model 63.589 19 0.000 0.970 0.956 0.066
3. Two-factor model with mod 40.880 18 0.000 0.985 0.976 0.049
Korean Sample (N=475)
1. Unidimensional model 297.496 20 0.000 0.698 0.577 0.171
2. Two-factor model 78.187 19 0.000 0.936 0.905 0.081
3. Two-factor model with mod 57.986 18 0.000 0.956 0.932 0.068
Note. * indicates robust statistics that are corrected based on the S-Bχ2 scaled statistic.

103
Table 4. Goodness-of-fit Indexes in the MGCFA

S-Bχ2 df p CFI* RMSEA* ΔCFI* ΔS-Bχ2 Δdf sig

Configural Invariance 98.634 36 0.000 0.974 0.059
Metric Invariance 144.895 43 0.000 0.957 0.069 -0.017 50.760 7 < 0.05
Partial Metric Invariance 108.513 42 0.000 0.972 0.056 -0.002 9.028 6 > 0.05
Scalar Invariance 213.457 49 0.000 0.931 0.082 -0.041 123.944 7 < 0.05
Note. * indicates robust statistics that are corrected based on the S-Bχ2 scaled statistic.

104
Table 5. Correlations between Grit-S, Perseverance, Consistency, Sense of Control,
Conscientiousness and Subjective Well-being

1 2 3 4 5 6
U.S.A.
1. Grit-S -
2. Grit-Perseverance 0.69*** -
3. Grit-Consistency 0.79*** 0.09* -
4. Sense of Control 0.48*** 0.33*** 0.38*** -
5. Conscientious 0.73*** 0.51*** 0.57*** 0.53*** -
6. Well-being 0.14** 0.26*** -0.03 0.24*** 0.16*** -

South Korea
1. Grit-S -
2. Grit-Perseverance 0.81*** -
3. Grit-Consistency 0.79*** 0.28*** -
4. Sense of Control 0.25*** 0.26*** 0.13** -
5. Conscientious 0.53*** 0.43*** 0.42*** 0.39*** -
6. Well-being 0.23*** 0.22*** 0.15*** 0.34*** 0.36*** -
*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05 (two-tailed tests).

105
Table 6. Hierarchical Regressions of Subjective Well-being

U.S.A. South Korea

Variable Models with Grit Composite Models with Grit Subcomponents Models with Grit Composite Models with Grit Subcomponents
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Age -0.008 -0.013* -0.014* -0.007 -0.012* -0.012* -0.020* -0.018* -0.025*** -0.019* -0.018* -0.025**
(0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.008) (0.008) (0.007) (0.008) (0.008) (0.007)
Gender 0.075 0.130 0.144 0.070 0.125 0.138 0.012 -0.028 -0.031 0.003 -0.030 -0.035
(0.172) (0.167) (0.168) (0.171) (0.166) (0.168) (0.178) (0.169) (0.165) (0.178) (0.169) (0.165)
White 0.013 0.033 0.031 0.042 0.061 0.059
(0.234) (0.231) (0.231) (0.233) (0.230) (0.230)
Education 0.174** 0.164** 0.162** 0.145* 0.136* 0.135* 0.025 0.034 -0.017 0.027 0.034 -0.016
(0.057) (0.054) (0.054) (0.058) (0.055) (0.055) (0.061) (0.056) (0.059) (0.061) (0.056) (0.059)
Income 0.143*** 0.129*** 0.129*** 0.138*** 0.125*** 0.125*** 0.058 0.043 0.038 0.057 0.043 0.038
(0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.031) (0.030) (0.028) (0.028) (0.030) (0.028) (0.028)
Married 0.461* 0.458* 0.458* 0.456* 0.453* 0.453* 0.819*** 0.755*** 0.716*** 0.824*** 0.757*** 0.718***
(0.189) (0.185) (0.185) (0.189) (0.184) (0.184) (0.209) (0.203) (0.198) (0.210) (0.204) (0.199)
Religious 0.145*** 0.157*** 0.157*** 0.133*** 0.145*** 0.145*** 0.122*** 0.127*** 0.145*** 0.121*** 0.127*** 0.144***
(0.024) (0.024) (0.024) (0.025) (0.025) (0.025) (0.030) (0.029) (0.029) (0.030) (0.029) (0.029)
Grit-S 0.561*** 0.244 0.176 0.718*** 0.470* 0.095
(0.136) (0.154) (0.179) (0.199) (0.186) (0.167)
Perseverance 0.526*** 0.362*** 0.331** 0.456** 0.270* 0.090
(0.101) (0.108) (0.121) (0.136) (0.129) (0.116)
Consistency 0.085 -0.065 -0.095 0.250 0.198 0.002
(0.091) (0.100) (0.108) (0.138) (0.129) (0.128)
Sense of 0.840*** 0.813*** 0.830*** 0.806*** 1.345*** 1.006*** 1.336*** 0.995***
Control (0.171) (0.179) (0.172) (0.178) (0.210) (0.219) (0.210) (0.219)
Conscientious 0.107 0.094 0.892*** 0.893***
(0.169) (0.169) (0.201) (0.201)
Constant 2.858*** 3.745*** 3.617*** 2.678*** 3.561*** 3.448*** 3.012*** 3.235*** 1.998** 3.018*** 3.236*** 1.997**
(0.564) (0.591) (0.640) (0.564) (0.592) (0.637) (0.641) (0.611) (0.645) (0.637) (0.611) (0.644)
R2 0.234 0.272 0.273 0.249 0.286 0.286 0.147 0.222 0.262 0.149 0.222 0.263
Note. Unstandardized coefficients appear above robust standard errors in parentheses.
*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05 (two-tailed tests).

106
Table 7. Descriptive Statistics

U.S.A. (N=444) France (N=464) Turkey (N=436) South Korea (N=467)

Variable
M SD Min Max M SD Min Max M SD Min Max M SD Min Max
Age 46.25 17.09 18 83 46.05 16.20 18 99 34.13 12.30 18 98 42.95 13.98 18 73
Male 0.50 0.50 0 1 0.51 0.50 0 1 0.56 0.50 0 1 0.48 0.50 0 1
Racial Majority
0.80 0.40 0 1 0.85 0.36 0 1 0.83 0.38 0 1
(White/Turkish)
Married 0.47 0.50 0 1 0.37 0.48 0 1 0.48 0.50 0 1 0.61 0.49 0 1
College or above 0.42 0.49 0 1 0.51 0.50 0 1 0.67 0.47 0 1 0.63 0.48 0 1
Family Income 5.56 3.25 1 10 4.82 2.80 1 10 7.97 2.68 1 10 5.52 2.81 1 10
Class 3.36 1.21 1 6 3.33 1.07 1 6 3.57 1.11 1 6 3.34 1.07 1 6
Religion 0.59 0.49 0 1 0.40 0.49 0 1 0.79 0.41 0 1 0.48 0.50 0 1

107
Table 8. Valuing Autonomy

U.S.A. France Turkey Korea

(N=444) (N=464) (N=435) (N=467) F-test
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Relative Importance
0.49 0.79 0.41 0.77 0.38 0.70 0.11 0.75 21.35***
of Autonomy
*** p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

108
Table 9. Descriptive Statistics of Sense of Control and Grit

U.S.A. (N=444) France (N=464) Turkey (N=436) Korea (N=467)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Sense of Control 0.56 0.54 0.18 0.43 0.40 0.49 0.47 0.44
Grit 3.34 0.64 3.29 0.65 3.31 0.69 3.15 0.59
Correlation (r) 0.37*** 0.22*** 0.28*** 0.29***
*** p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

109
Table 10. Standardized Path Coefficients

U.S.A. (N=444) France (N=464) Turkey (N=436) South Korea (N=467)

Variable Class Sense of Grit Class Sense of Grit Class Sense of Grit Class Sense of Grit
Control Control Control Control
Age 0.060 0.227*** 0.176*** 0.043 0.030 0.263*** -0.056 -0.016 0.201*** 0.127** 0.006 0.288***
(0.038) (0.044) (0.045) (0.042) (0.050) (0.043) (0.047) (0.053) (0.044) (0.041) (0.054) (0.041)
Education 0.120** 0.217*** 0.143** 0.157***
(0.043) (0.042) (0.049) (0.041)
Income 0.518*** 0.397*** 0.243*** 0.375***
(0.037) (0.039) (0.049) (0.038)
White/Turkish 0.078+ 0.020 0.012 -0.040 -0.027 -0.039
(0.045) (0.045) (0.047) (0.045) (0.048) (0.045)
Male -0.060 0.051 0.042 -0.021
(0.044) (0.046) (0.048) (0.046)
Married 0.090+ 0.053 0.063 0.039
(0.048) (0.049) (0.052) (0.054)
Religion -0.037 -0.051 0.071 -0.074+ -0.090+ 0.118** 0.002 0.039
(0.045) (0.044) (0.047) (0.045) (0.048) (0.045) (0.047) (0.043)
Subjective Class 0.203*** 0.008 0.182*** 0.101* 0.088+ 0.071 0.148** 0.042
(0.046) (0.045) (0.045) (0.044) (0.047) (0.045) (0.047) (0.043)
Sense of Control 0.316*** 0.184*** 0.284*** 0.265***
(0.045) (0.044) (0.043) (0.041)
Constant 1.426*** -0.270 4.450*** 1.655*** -0.410+ 4.099*** 1.884*** 0.707** 3.643*** 0.882** 0.553** 3.999***
(0.167) (0.182) (0.258) (0.217) (0.212) (0.276) (0.305) (0.239) (0.282) (0.336) (0.207) (0.259)
Note. Standardized coefficients appear above standard errors in parentheses.
*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05, + p < .10 (two-tailed tests).

110
Table 11. Standardized Direct, Indirect and Total Effects of Subjective Class on Grit

U.S.A. France Turkey South Korea

Direct Effects 0.008 0.101* 0.071 0.042
Indirect Effects 0.064*** 0.033** 0.025+ 0.039**
(via sense of control)
Total Effects 0.072 0.134** 0.096* 0.082+
*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05, + p < .10 (two-tailed tests).

111
Table 12. Descriptive Statistics

U.S.A. (N=523) South Korea (N=452)

Variable Std. Std.
Mean Min Max Mean Min Max
Dev. Dev.
Age 46.63 16.23 18 85 41.59 13.33 18 73
Male 0.50 0.50 0 1 0.49 0.50 0 1
White 0.84 0.37 0 1
Married 0.48 0.50 0 1 0.52 0.50 0 1
Religiosity 5.31 3.55 0 10 3.62 3.10 0 10
Christian 0.40 0.49 0 1 0.31 0.46 0 1
Education 4.04 1.56 1 8 4.19 1.46 1 8
Household Income 5.93 3.16 1 11 5.96 2.89 1 11
Subjective Class Identification
• Lower class 0.27 0.44 0 1 0.21 0.41 0 1
• Middle class 0.54 0.50 0 1 0.71 0.46 0 1
• Upper class 0.19 0.39 0 1 0.09 0.28 0 1
Parental Education 3.79 1.88 1 8 3.09 1.83 1 8
Valuation of Grit 4.38 0.63 1 5 4.03 0.59 2 5
Perseverance 3.80 0.80 1 5 3.22 0.74 1 5
Consistency 3.28 0.95 1 5 3.13 0.70 1 5
Sense of Control 0.57 0.57 -1.25 2 0.43 0.41 -0.875 2

112
Table 13. Regression of the Valuation of Grit on Social Structural Positions, Sense of
Control and Control Variables

U.S.A. (N=523) South Korea (N=452)

Variable
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Age 0.004* 0.001 0.004 0.004
(0.002) (0.002) (0.003) (0.002)
Male (=1) -0.261*** -0.220*** -0.057 -0.068
(0.059) (0.057) (0.059) (0.055)
White (=1) 0.118 0.125
(0.083) (0.081)
Married (=1) -0.006 0.014 -0.015 -0.022
(0.062) (0.059) (0.068) (0.063)
Religiosity 0.016 0.022** -0.003 -0.004
(0.008) (0.008) (0.012) (0.011)
Christian (=1) 0.149** 0.139* 0.034 0.037
(0.056) (0.054) (0.071) (0.067)
Education 0.002 -0.002 -0.013 -0.009
(0.020) (0.020) (0.020) (0.019)
Household Income 0.015 0.010 0.010 0.007
(0.012) (0.011) (0.011) (0.010)
Subjective Class
• Middle Class a -0.154* -0.157* 0.013 -0.037
(0.067) (0.065) (0.072) (0.068)
• Upper Class a -0.013 -0.053 0.151 -0.003
(0.101) (0.098) (0.112) (0.106)
Parental Education -0.009 -0.003 -0.059*** -0.050**
(0.017) (0.016) (0.017) (0.016)
Sense of Control 0.332*** 0.462***
(0.045) (0.065)
Constant 4.102*** 4.034*** 4.078*** 3.902***
(0.152) (0.147) (0.147) (0.134)
R2 0.095 0.175 0.046 0.147
Note. Unstandardized coefficients appear above robust standard errors in parentheses.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).
a Compared to those with lower class identification

113
Table 14. Regressions of Perseverance and Consistency on the Valuation of Grit, Sense
of Control and Control Variables

U.S.A. (N=523) South Korea (N=452)

Variable Perseverance Consistency Perseverance Consistency
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Age 0.001 0.001 0.009*** 0.009*** 0.005 0.004 0.011** 0.011**
(0.002) (0.002) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003)
Male (=1) -0.076 0.002 -0.077 -0.089 0.025 0.036 -0.034 -0.038
(0.069) (0.069) (0.078) (0.080) (0.072) (0.073) (0.068) (0.069)
White (=1) -0.043 -0.086 0.100 0.107
(0.089) (0.084) (0.104) (0.105)
Married (=1) -0.085 -0.090 -0.139 -0.138 -0.075 -0.072 -0.005 -0.007
(0.079) (0.073) (0.085) (0.084) (0.080) (0.080) (0.082) (0.082)
Religiosity 0.025* 0.018 -0.025* -0.024 0.015 0.016 0.011 0.011
(0.011) (0.011) (0.013) (0.013) (0.014) (0.014) (0.013) (0.013)
Christian (=1) 0.121 0.072 0.122 0.130 0.059 0.053 -0.040 -0.038
(0.074) (0.071) (0.086) (0.087) (0.078) (0.077) (0.076) (0.075)
Education 0.053* 0.053* -0.047 -0.047 0.001 0.002 0.029 0.029
(0.024) (0.024) (0.029) (0.029) (0.025) (0.025) (0.028) (0.028)
Household 0.007 0.003 -0.010 -0.010 0.006 0.005 0.000 0.000
Income (0.015) (0.014) (0.016) (0.016) (0.011) (0.011) (0.012) (0.012)
Subjective Class
Middle Class a -0.127 -0.072 0.165 0.156 0.072 0.078 -0.014 -0.016
(0.080) (0.077) (0.090) (0.091) (0.088) (0.088) (0.086) (0.086)
Upper Class a 0.115 0.134 -0.018 -0.021 0.233 0.234 -0.186 -0.186
(0.119) (0.117) (0.138) (0.138) (0.154) (0.154) (0.164) (0.163)
Parental -0.009 -0.008 -0.045* -0.045* -0.020 -0.012 0.018 0.015
Education (0.020) (0.019) (0.022) (0.022) (0.019) (0.019) (0.018) (0.018)
Sense of Control 0.444*** 0.327*** 0.555*** 0.573*** 0.458*** 0.384*** 0.229* 0.255**
(0.057) (0.059) (0.079) (0.084) (0.095) (0.100) (0.089) (0.093)
Valuation of Grit 0.351*** -0.057 0.162* -0.057
(0.068) (0.071) (0.064) (0.057)
Constant 3.240*** 1.823*** 2.999*** 3.228*** 2.732*** 2.100*** 2.415*** 2.636***
(0.169) (0.343) (0.189) (0.338) (0.172) (0.305) (0.177) (0.298)
R2 0.158 0.220 0.239 0.240 0.104 0.118 0.070 0.072
Note. Unstandardized coefficients appear above robust standard errors in parentheses.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).
a Compared to those with lower class identification

114
Figure 1. A Hypothetical Path Diagram

115
Figure 2. Perceived Importance of Various Factors for Getting Ahead in Life

116
 APPENDIX B. KEY SURVEY QUESTIONS

Grit-S scale (Duckworth and Quinn 2009)

Here are a number of statements that may or may not apply to you. For the most accurate
score, when responding, think of how you compare to most people -- not just the people
you know well, but most people in the world. There are no right or wrong answers, so
just answer honestly!
A. New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones.
B. Setbacks don’t discourage me.
C. I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost
interest.
D. I am a hard worker.
E. I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one.
F. I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more than a few months
to complete.
G. I finish whatever I begin.
H. I am diligent.

Sense of Control (Mirowsky and Ross 1991)

Please read the following statements and indicate how strongly you agree or disagree
with each statement.
A. I can do just about anything I really set my mind to.
B. My misfortunes are the result of mistakes I have made.
C. There’s no sense of planning a lot—if something good is going to happen it will.
D. I have little control over the bad things that happen to me.
E. I am responsible for my own successes.
F. I am responsible for my failures.
G. The really good things that happen to me are mostly luck.
H. Most of my problems are due to bad breaks.

Conscientiousness (John and Srivastava 1999)

I see myself as someone who…
A. Does a thorough job.
B. Can be somewhat careless.
C. Is a reliable worker.
D. Tends to be disorganized.
E. Tends to be lazy.
F. Perseveres until the task is finished.
G. Do things efficiently.
H. Makes plans and follows through with them.
I. Is easily distracted.

117
 REFERENCES

Abuhassàn, Abedrahman, and Timothy C Bates. 2015. "Grit." Journal of individual

Differences 36(4):205-14.
Arslan, Serhat, Ahmet Akin, and Nihan Çitemel. 2013. "The predictive role of grit on
metacognition in Turkish university students." Studia Psychologica 55(4):311-20.
Baer, Douglas E, and Ronald D Lambert. 1982. "Education and support for dominant
ideology." Canadian Review of Sociology 19(2):173-95.
Barnes, Sandra L. 2002. "Achievement or ascription ideology? An analysis of attitudes
about future success for residents in poor urban neighborhoods." Sociological
Focus 35(2):207-25.
Beller, Emily, and Michael Hout. 2006. "Intergenerational social mobility: the United
States in comparative perspective." The Future of Children 16(2):19-36.
Blalock, Dan V, Kevin C Young, and Evan M Kleiman. 2015. "Stability amidst turmoil:
Grit buffers the effects of negative life events on suicidal ideation." Psychiatry
research 228(3):781-84.
Blau, Peter M, and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. The American occupational structure.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. [1970] 1990. Reproduction in Education,
Society and Culture. London: Sage Publications.
Bowman, Nicholas A, Patrick L Hill, Nida Denson, and Ryan Bronkema. 2015. "Keep on
Truckin’ or Stay The Course? Exploring Grit Dimensions as Differential
Predictors of Educational Achievement, Satisfaction, and Intentions." Social
psychological and personality science 6(6):639-45.
Breen, Richard, and Jan O Jonsson. 2005. "Inequality of opportunity in comparative
perspective: Recent research on educational attainment and social mobility."
Annual Review of Sociology 31:223-43.
Brislin, Richard W. 1970. "Back-translation for cross-cultural research." Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology 1(3):185-216.
Byrne, Barbara M, Richard J Shavelson, and Bengt Muthén. 1989. "Testing for the
equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial
measurement invariance." Psychological bulletin 105(3):456-66.
Calarco, Jessica McCrory. 2011. ""I Need Help!" Social Class and Children's Help-
Seeking in Elementary School." American Sociological Review 76(6):862-82.
Cheung, Gordon W, and Roger B Rensvold. 2002. "Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes
for testing measurement invariance." Structural equation modeling 9(2):233-55.
Clausen, John A. 1993. American lives: Looking back at the children of the Great
Depression. New York: Free Press.
Clausen, John S. 1991. "Adolescent Competence and the Shaping of the Life Course."
American Journal of Sociology 96(4):805-42.
Credé, Marcus, Michael C Tynan, and Peter D Harms. 2017. "Much Ado About Grit: A
Meta-Analytic Synthesis of the Grit Literature." Journal of personality and social
psychology 113(3):492-511.

118
Datu, Jesus Alfonso D, Jana Patricia M Valdez, and Ronnel B King. 2016a.
"Perseverance counts but consistency does not! Validating the short grit scale in a
collectivist setting." Current Psychology 35(1):121-30.
—. 2016b. "The Successful Life of Gritty Students: Grit Leads to Optimal Educational
and Well-Being Outcomes in a Collectivist Context." Pp. 503-16 in The
Psychology of Asian Learners: Springer.
Datu, Jesus Alfonso D, Mantak Yuen, and Gaowei Chen. 2017. "Development and
validation of the Triarchic Model of Grit Scale (TMGS): Evidence from Filipino
undergraduate students." Personality and Individual Differences 114:198-205.
Deahl, Rachel. 2014. "Frankfurt Book Fair 2014: Penn Prof Lands Seven Figures for
‘Grit’." in Publishers Weekly.
Delhey, Jan, and Georgi Dragolov. 2014. "Why inequality makes Europeans less happy:
The role of distrust, status anxiety, and perceived conflict." European
Sociological Review 30(2):151-65.
Diener, Ed, Shigehiro Oishi, and Richard E Lucas. 2003. "Personality, culture, and
subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life." Annual
review of psychology 54(1):403-25.
Dimitrov, Dimiter M. 2010. "Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct
validation." Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
43(2):121-49.
Disabato, David J, Fallon R Goodman, and Todd B Kashdan. 2018. "Is grit relevant to
well‐being and strengths? Evidence across the globe for separating perseverance
of effort and consistency of interests." Journal of personality 00:1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12382
Duckworth, Angela. 2016. Grit: Passion, Perseverance and the Science of Success. NY:
Random House.
Duckworth, Angela, and James J Gross. 2014. "Self-control and grit: Related but
separable determinants of success." Current Directions in Psychological Science
23(5):319-25.
Duckworth, Angela L, Christopher Peterson, Michael D Matthews, and Dennis R Kelly.
2007. "Grit: Perseverance and Passion for Long-Term Goals." Journal of
personality and social psychology 92(6):1087-101.
Duckworth, Angela Lee, and Lauren Eskreis-Winkler. 2013. "True grit." The observer
26(4):1-3.
Duckworth, Angela Lee, Teri A. Kirby, Eli Tsukayama, Heather Berstein, and K. Anders
Ericsson. 2011. "Deliberate Practice Spells Success: Why Grittier Competitors
Triumph at the National Spelling Bee." Social psychological and personality
science 2(2):174-81.
Duckworth, Angela Lee, and Patrick D Quinn. 2009. "Development and Validation of the
Short Grit Scale (GRIT–S)." Journal of personality assessment 91(2):166-74.
Duckworth, Angela Lee, Patrick D Quinn, and Martin EP Seligman. 2009. "Positive
predictors of teacher effectiveness." The Journal of Positive Psychology 4(6):540-
47.
Duru-Bellat, Marie, and Elise Tenret. 2012. "Who’s for Meritocracy? Individual and
Contextual Variations in the Faith." Comparative Education Review 56(2):223-
47.

119
Dweck, Carol S. 2006. Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY:
Random House.
—. 2017. "From needs to goals and representations: Foundations for a unified theory of
motivation, personality, and development." Psychological review 124(6):689-719.
Emirbayer, Mustafa, and Ann Mische. 1998. "What is Agency?" American Journal of
Sociology 103(4):962-1023.
Eskreis-Winkler, Lauren, Elizabeth P Shulman, and Angela L Duckworth. 2014.
"Survivor mission: Do those who survive have a drive to thrive at work?" The
Journal of Positive Psychology 9(3):209-18.
Eskreis-Winkler, Lauren, Elizabeth P. Shulman, Scott A. Beal, and Angela L.
Duckworth. 2014. "The Grit Effect: Predicting Retention in the Military, the
Workplace, School and Marriage." Frontiers in Psychology 5(36):1-12.
Featherman, David L., and Rovert Mason Hauser. 1978. "A Refined Model of
Occupational Mobility." in Opportunity and Change, Studies in Population. NY:
Academic press.
Gecas, Viktor. 1989. "The social psychology of self-efficacy." Annual Review of
Sociology 15:291-316.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic
books.
Gifford, Denise D, Juanita Briceno-Perriott, and Frank Mianzo. 2006. "Locus of Control:
Academic Achievement and Retention in a Sample of University First-Year
Students." Journal of College Admission 191:18-25.
Heine, Steven J, and Ara Norenzayan. 2006. "Toward a psychological science for a
cultural species." Perspectives on psychological science 1(3):251-69.
Henrich, Joseph, Steven J Heine, and Ara Norenzayan. 2010. "Most people are not
WEIRD." Nature 466(7302):29-29.
Hill, Patrick L, Anthony L Burrow, and Kendall Cotton Bronk. 2016. "Persevering with
positivity and purpose: An examination of purpose commitment and positive
affect as predictors of grit." Journal of Happiness Studies 17(1):257-69.
Hitlin, Steven, and Glen H Elder. 2007. "Time, Self, and the Curiously Abstract Concept
of Agency." Sociological theory 25(2):170-91.
Hitlin, Steven, and Monica Kirkpatrick Johnson. 2015. "Reconceptualizing Agency
within the Life Course: The Power of Looking Ahead." American Journal of
Sociology 120(5):1429-72.
Hitlin, Steven, and Hye Won Kwon. 2016. "Agency across the Life Course." Pp. 431-49
in Handbook of the Life Course, edited by Michael J. Shanahan, Mortimer, Jeylan
T., Kirkpatrick Johnson, Monica. New York: Springer.
Hitlin, Steven, and Charisse Long. 2009. "Agency as a sociological variable: A
preliminary model of individuals, situations, and the life course." Sociology
Compass 3(1):137-60.
Hochanadel, Aaron, and Dora Finamore. 2015. "Fixed and Growth Mindset in Education
and How Grit Helps Students Persist in the Face of Adversity." Journal of
International Education Research 11(1):47-50.
Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-
related Values. CA: Sage.

120
—. 2001. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and
Organizations across Nations. CA: Sage.
Hu, Li‐tze, and Peter M Bentler. 1999. "Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives." Structural
equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal 6(1):1-55.
Hwang, Mae Hyang, Hyo Jin Lim, and Hye Suk Ha. 2017. "Effects of Grit on the
Academic Success of Adult Female Students at Korean Open University."
Psychological Reports 0(0):1-21.
Inglehart, Ronald, and Paul R Abramson. 1999. "Measuring Postmaterialism." American
Political Science Review 93(3):665-77.
Ion, Andrei, Alexandra Mindu, and Adrian Gorbănescu. 2017. "Grit in the workplace:
Hype or ripe?" Personality and Individual Differences 111:163-68.
Ivcevic, Zorana, and Marc Brackett. 2014. "Predicting school success: Comparing
Conscientiousness, Grit, and Emotion Regulation Ability." Journal of research in
personality 52:29-36.
John, Oliver P, and Sanjay Srivastava. 1999. "The Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History,
Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives." Pp. 102-38 in Handbook of
Personality: Theory and Research, edited by L. A. Pervin and O.P. John. NY:
The Guilford Press.
Jonsson, Jan O, David B Grusky, Matthew Di Carlo, Reinhard Pollak, and Mary C
Brinton. 2009. "Microclass Mobility: Social Reproduction in Four Countries."
American Journal of Sociology 114(4):977-1036.
Jost, John T, Mahzarin R Banaji, and Brian A Nosek. 2004. "A decade of system
justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious
bolstering of the status quo." Political Psychology 25(6):881-919.
Jost, John T, and Orsolya Hunyady. 2005. "Antecedents and consequences of system-
justifying ideologies." Current Directions in Psychological Science 14(5):260-65.
Kamenetz, Anya. 2016. "MacArthur 'Genius' Angela Duckworth Responds to a New
Critique of Grit." in NRP Ed.
Keister, Lisa A, and Stephanie Moller. 2000. "Wealth inequality in the United States."
Annual Review of Sociology 26:63-81.
Kim, Andrew Eungi, and Gil-sung Park. 2003. "Nationalism, Confucianism, work ethic
and industrialization in South Korea." Journal of Contemporary Asia 33(1):37-49.
Kohn, Melvin L. 1989. "Social structure and personality: A quintessentially sociological
approach to social psychology." Social forces 68(1):26-33.
Kohn, Melvin L, Atsushi Naoi, Carrie Schoenbach, Carmi Schooler, and Kazimierz M
Slomczynski. 1990. "Position in the class structure and psychological functioning
in the United States, Japan, and Poland." American Journal of Sociology
95(4):964-1008.
Kohn, Melvin L, and Carmi Schooler. 1969. "Class, occupation, and orientation."
American Sociological Review 34(5):659-78.
Kundu, Anindya. 2016. "Roses in concrete: A Perspective on how agency and grit can
foster the success of all students, especially those most disadvantaged." The
Journal of School and Society 3(2):18-31.
—. 2017. "Grit and Agency: A Framework for Helping Students in Poverty to Achieve
Academic Greatness." National Youth-At-Risk Journal 2(2):69-80.

121
Kundu, Anindya, and Pedro Noguera. 2014. "Why America’s Infatuation with “Grit”
Can’t Solve Our Educational Dilemmas." Virginia Policy Review
11(Summer):49-53.
Kunovich, Sheri, and Kazimierz M Slomczynski. 2007. "Systems of distribution and a
sense of equity: A multilevel analysis of meritocratic attitudes in post-industrial
societies." European Sociological Review 23(5):649-63.
Kwon, Hye Won. 2017. "Expanding the Notion of Agency: Introducing Grit as an
Additional Facet of Agency." in Agency at Work: An Agentic Perspective on
Professional Learning and Development, edited by Michael Goller and Susanna
Paloniemi. Cham: Springer.
Lamont, Michèle. 1992. Money, morals, and manners: The culture of the French and the
American upper-middle class: University of Chicago Press.
Lareau, Annette. 2002. "Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black
families and white families." American Sociological Review 67(5):747-76.
—. 2008. "Introduction: Taking Stock of Class." Pp. 3-24 in Social Class: How does it
work?, edited by Annette Lareau and Dalton Conley: Russell Sage Foundation.
—. 2015. "Cultural Knowledge and Social Inequality." American Sociological Review
80(1):1-27.
Lareau, Annette, and Jessica McCrory Calarco. 2012. "Class, Cultural Capital, and
Institutions: The Case of Families and Schools." in Facing Social Class: Social
Psychology of Social Class, edited by Susan T. Fiske and Hazel R. Markus. NY:
Russel Sage Foundation.
Laurin, Kristin, Gráinne M Fitzsimons, and Aaron C Kay. 2011. "Social disadvantage
and the self-regulatory function of justice beliefs." Journal of personality and
social psychology 100(1):149-71.
Lee, Chul-In , and Gary Solon. 2009. "Trends in Intergenerational Income Mobility." The
Review of Economics and Statistics 91(4):766-72.
Lewis, Susan K., Catherine E. Ross, and John Mirowsky. 1999. "Establishing a Sense of
Personal Control in the Transition to Adulthood." Social forces 77(4):1573-99.
Li, Jingguang, Yajun Zhao, Feng Kong, Shuailing Du, Suyong Yang, and Song Wang.
2016. "Psychometric assessment of the Short Grit Scale among Chinese
adolescents." Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 0(0):1-6.
Lim, Cheryl, and Chua Sin Lay. 2003. "Confucianism and the protestant work ethic."
Asia Europe Journal 1(3):321-22.
Littler, Jo. 2013. "Meritocracy as plutocracy: The marketising of 'Equality' under
neoliberalism." New Formations 80(80):52-72.
Lucas, Gale M, Jonathan Gratch, Lin Cheng, and Stacy Marsella. 2015. "When the going
gets tough: Grit predicts costly perseverance." Journal of research in personality
59:15-22.
Marcus, Justin, Savas Ceylan, and Canan Ergin. 2017. "Not So “Traditional” Anymore?
Generational Shifts on Schwartz Values in Turkey." Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology 48(1):58-74.
Markus, Hazel R, and Shinobu Kitayama. 1991. "Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation." Psychological review 98(2):224-53.
Matsumoto, David, and Seung Hee Yoo. 2006. "Toward a new generation of cross-
cultural research." Perspectives on psychological science 1(3):234-50.

122
McCall, Leslie, and Christine Percheski. 2010. "Income inequality: New trends and
research directions." Annual Review of Sociology 36:329-47.
Mendick, Heather, Kim Allen, and Laura Harvey. 2015. "‘We can get everything we
want if we try hard’: young people, celebrity, hard work." British Journal of
Educational Studies 63(2):161-78.
Meriac, John P, John S Slifka, and Lauren R LaBat. 2015. "Work ethic and grit: An
examination of empirical redundancy." Personality and Individual Differences
86:401-05.
Mirowsky, John. 1995. "Age and the sense of control." Social Psychology Quarterly
58(1):31-43.
Mirowsky, John, and Catherine E. Ross. 1991. "Eliminating Defense and Agreement Bias
from Measures of the Sense of Control: A 2 x 2 Index." Social Psychology
Quarterly 54(2):127-45.
—. 2007. "Life Course Trajectories of Perceived Control and Their Relationship to
Education." American Journal of Sociology 112(5):1339-82.
Mische, Ann. 2009. "Projects and possibilities: Researching futures in action."
Sociological Forum 24(3):694-704.
Moffitt, Terrie E, Louise Arseneault, Daniel Belsky, Nigel Dickson, Robert J Hancox,
HonaLee Harrington, Renate Houts, Richie Poulton, Brent W Roberts, and
Stephen Ross. 2011. "A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth,
and public safety." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
108(7):2693-98.
Morgan, Stephen L. 2005. On the edge of commitment: Educational attainment and race
in the United States. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Muenks, Katherine, Allan Wigfield, Ji Seung Yang, and Colleen R O’neal. 2016. "How
true is grit? Assessing its relations to high school and college students’ personality
characteristics, self-regulation, engagement, and achievement." Journal of
Educational Psychology 109(5):599-620.
Mun, Kongju, and Eun Hye Ham. 2016. "An Analysis of the Relationship of Grit,
Interest, Task-Commitment, Self-Regulation Ability, and Science Achievement of
High School Students." Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education
36(3):445-55.
OECD. 2014. “Korea” in Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators. OECD
Publishing. Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-61-en
OECD Statistics. 2016. Educational Attainment and Labour-force Status.
http://stats.oecd.org/#
O'Rand, Angela, and Robert A Ellis. 1974. "Social class and social time perspective."
Social forces 53(1):53-62.
Oishi, Shigehiro, Edward F Diener, Richard E Lucas, and Eunkook M Suh. 1999. "Cross-
Cultural Variations in Predictors of Life Satisfaction: Perspectives from Needs
and Values." Personality and social psychology bulletin 25(8):980-90.
Pearlin, Leonard I, and Melvin L Kohn. 1966. "Social class, occupation, and parental
values: A cross-national study." American Sociological Review 31(4):466-79.
Poropat, Arthur E. 2009. "A Meta-Analysis of the Five-Factor Model of Personality and
Academic Performance." Psychological bulletin 135(2):322-38.

123
Reed, Justy, Brian L Pritschet, and David M Cutton. 2013. "Grit, conscientiousness, and
the transtheoretical model of change for exercise behavior." Journal of health
psychology 18(5):612-19.
Reynolds, Jeremy, and He Xian. 2014. "Perceptions of meritocracy in the land of
opportunity." Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 36:121-37.
Rimfeld, Kaili, Yulia Kovas, Philip S Dale, and Robert Plomin. 2016. "True Grit and
Genetics: Predicting Academic Achievement From Personality." Journal of
personality and social psychology 111(5):780-89.
Roberts, Brent W. 2009. "Back to the future: Personality and assessment and personality
development." Journal of research in personality 43(2):137-45.
Robertson-Kraft, Claire, and AL Duckworth. 2014. "True Grit: Trait-level Perseverance
and Passion for Long-term Goals Predicts Effectiveness and Retention among
Novice Teachers." Teachers College Record 116(3):1-27.
Ross, Catherine E, and Marieke Van Willigen. 1997. "Education and the Subjective
Quality of Life." Journal of Health and Social Behavior 38(3):275-97.
Ross, Catherine E., and John Mirowsky. 2002. "Age and the Gender Gap in the Sense of
Personal Control." Social Psychology Quarterly 65(2):125-45.
—. 2013. "The Sense of Personal Control: Social Structural Causes and Emotional
Consequences." Pp. 379-402 in Handbook of the Sociology of Mental Health,
edited by Carol S. Aneshensel, Jo C. Phelan, and Alex Bierman: Springer
Netherlands.
Salles, Arghavan, Geoffrey L Cohen, and Claudia M Mueller. 2014. "The relationship
between grit and resident well-being." The American Journal of Surgery
207(2):251-54.
Sastry, Jaya, and Catherine E Ross. 1998. "Asian Ethnicity and the Sense of Personal
Control." Social Psychology Quarterly 61:101-20.
Satorra, Albert, and Pete M Bentler. 1994. "Corrections to test statistics and standard
errors in covariance structure analysis." Pp. 399-419 in Latent variables analysis:
Applications for developmental research, edited by A. von Eye and C.C. Clogg.
Thousand Oaks.
Satorra, Albert, and Peter M Bentler. 1988. "Scaling corrections for chi-square statistics
in covariance structure analysis." Pp. 308-13 in Proceedings of the American
Statistical Association: Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
Schieman, Scott, and Gabriele Plickert. 2008. "How Knowledge is Power: Education and
the Sense of Control." Social forces 87(1):153-83.
Schwartz, Shalom H. 1994. "Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents
of Human Values?" Journal of social issues 50(4):19-45.
—. 2013. "Topics: Human Values. European Social Survey Education Net (ESS EduNet).
Norwegian Social Science Data Services. Retrieved July 18, 2017, from
http://essedunet.nsd.uib.no/cms/topics/1/."
Schwartz, Shalom H, Gila Melech, Arielle Lehmann, Steven Burgess, Mari Harris, and
Vicki Owens. 2001. "Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic
human values with a different method of measurement." Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology 32(5):519-42.

124
Sewell, William H, Archibald O Haller, and Alejandro Portes. 1969. "The Educational
and Early Occupational Attainment Process." American Sociological Review
34(1):82-92.
Sewell, William H., Archibald O. Haller, and George W. Ohlendorf. 1970. "The
Educational and Early Occupational Status Attainment Process: Replication and
Revision." American Sociological Review 35:1014-27.
Shanahan, Michael J, Scott M Hofer, and Richard A Miech. 2003. "Planful Competence,
the Life Course, and Aging: Retrospect and Prospect." Pp. 189-211 in Personal
Control in Social and Life Course Contexts, edited by Steven H. Zarit, Leonard I.
Pearlin, and K. Warner Schaie. New York, NY: Springer.
Shanahan, Michael J, and Ross Macmillan. 2008. Biography and the Sociological
Imagination: Contexts and Contingencies: WW Norton.
Shechtman, Nicole, Angela H DeBarger, Carolyn Dornsife, Soren Rosier, and Louise
Yarnall. 2013. Promoting grit, tenacity, and perseverance: Critical factors for
success in the 21st century. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Shepelak, Norma J. 1989. "Ideological stratification: American beliefs about economic
justice." Social Justice Research 3(3):217-31.
Singh, Kamlesh, and Shalini Duggal Jha. 2008. "Positive and negative affect, and grit as
predictors of happiness and life satisfaction." Journal of the Indian Academy of
Applied Psychology 34(Special issue):40-45.
Stokas, Ariana Gonzalez. 2015. "A genealogy of grit: Education in the new gilded age."
Educational Theory 65(5):513-28.
Strauss, Valerie. 2014. "Ten Concerns about the ‘Let’s Teach Them Grit’ Fad." in The
Washington Post.
—. 2015. "U.S. government to collect data on ‘grit’ levels of students." in The
Washington Post.
Strayhorn, Terrell L. 2014. "What Role Does Grit Play in the Academic Success of Black
Male Collegians at Predominantly White Institutions?" Journal of African
American Studies 18(1):1-10.
Suh, Eunkook M, and Shigehiro Oishi. 2002. "Subjective well-being across cultures."
Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 10(1).
Suzuki, Yuhei, Dai Tamesue, Kentaro Asahi, and Yoshiki Ishikawa. 2015. "Grit and
Work Engagement: A Cross-Sectional Study." PloS one 10(9):e0137501.
Taras, Vas, Piers Steel, and Bradley L Kirkman. 2012. "Improving National Cultural
Indices Using a Longitudinal Meta-Analysis of Hofstede's Dimensions." Journal
of World Business 47(3):329-41.
Vainio, Mia M, and Daiva Daukantaitė. 2016. "Grit and different aspects of well-being:
Direct and indirect relationships via sense of coherence and authenticity." Journal
of Happiness Studies 17(5):2119-47.
Vaisey, Stephen. 2009. "Motivation and Justification: A Dual‐Process Model of Culture
in Action." American Journal of Sociology 114(6):1675-715.
—. 2010. "What People Want: Rethinking Poverty, Culture, and Educational
Attainment." The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 629(1):75-101.

125
Van de Schoot, Rens, Peter Lugtig, and Joop Hox. 2012. "A checklist for testing
measurement invariance." European Journal of Developmental Psychology
9(4):486-92.
Vandenberg, Robert J, and Charles E Lance. 2000. "A review and synthesis of the
measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations
for organizational research." Organizational research methods 3(1):4-70.
Von Culin, Katherine R., Eli Tsukayama, and Angela L. Duckworth. 2014. "Unpacking
grit: Motivational Correlates of Perseverance and Passion for Long-Term Goals."
The Journal of Positive Psychology 9(4):306-12.
Wang, Li-Ya, Edward Kick, James Fraser, and Thomas Jerome Burns. 1999. "Status
attainment in America: The roles of locus of control and self-esteem in
educational and occupational outcomes." Sociological Spectrum 19(3):281-98.
Weber, Max. [1904-5] 2002. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism: and other
writings: Penguin.
Xian, He, and Jeremy Reynolds. 2017. "Bootstraps, Buddies, and Bribes: Perceived
Meritocracy in the United States and China." The Sociological Quarterly
58(4):622-47.
Xu, Hui, and Terence JG Tracey. 2017. "Use of Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor
Analysis in Examining Measurement Invariance in Counseling Psychology
Research." The European Journal of Counselling Psychology 6(1):75-82.
You, Sukkyung, Sehee Hong, and Hsiu-zu Ho. 2011. "Longitudinal Effects of Perceived
Control on Academic Achievement." Journal of Educational Research
104(4):253-66.
Young, Michael. 1958. The Rise of the Meritocracy: 1870–2033. London: Thames and
Hudson.
Zernike, Kate. 2016. "Testing for Joy and Grit? Schools Nationwide Push to Measure
Students’ Emotional Skills." in The New York Times. NY.
Zimmerman, Barry J, Albert Bandura, and Manuel Martinez-Pons. 1992. "Self-
motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal
goal setting." American Educational Research Journal 29(3):663-76.

126