© Lavanya Sampasivam 2009

Running head: BELIEFS, GOALS AND AFFECT
Implicit Beliefs, Achievement Goals, and Affect: A Cross-Cultural Comparison
Lavanya Sampasivam
Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology
McGill University, Montreal
August 2009
A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree
Master of Arts in Educational Psychology (School/Applied Child Psychology Stream)
© Lavanya Sampasivam 2009

Beliefs, Goals and Affect: 2
Abstract
Research suggests that the implicit theories students hold about learning predict the types of
goals they set for learning and the consequences these belief-goal structures have on student
cognition, affect, and behaviour. Although previous studies have indicated that individuals with
incremental and entity theories of intelligence set mastery and performance goals for learning,
respectively, there is a lack of studies testing the validity of this relationship across cultures.
Caucasian (n = 58) and Asian (n = 38) students completed measures of their implicit beliefs
about intelligence, their achievement goals, and affect. After learning a novel way to solve
multiplication problems, participants were randomly assigned to a negative, positive, or no
feedback condition. Participants‟ beliefs, goals and affect were reassessed following feedback.
Results show that Asians did not endorse incremental theories of intelligence significantly more
than Caucasians, that Asian students‟ endorsements of mastery and performance goals were
highly correlated and that both Caucasian students and Asian students were significantly affected
by negative performance feedback. These results are consistent with a growing body of research
suggesting that current conceptualizations of achievement goal theory are not cross-culturally
valid.
Résumé
Cette recherche suggère que les théories implicites sur l‟apprentissage qu‟ont les étudiants
prédisent les types but que ces derniers se fixent pour apprendre ainsi que les conséquences que
ces structures de convictions d‟apprentissage ont sur leurs cognition, leur affect et leur
comportements. Malgré le fait que les études précédentes indiquent que les individus ayant un
modèle d‟intelligence incrémentale et d‟entité se fixent respectivement des buts de maîtrisent et
de performance pour apprendre, il y a un manque d‟étude testant la validité de ces structures
théorique à travers les cultures. Des étudiants caucasiens (n=58) et les asiatiques (n=38) ont
complété des mesures de leurs convictions à propos de l‟intelligence, de leurs buts
d‟accomplissement et leur affect. Après avoir appris une nouvelle méthode pour résoudre des
multiplications, les participants ont été assignés au hasard à recevoir des remarques négatives,
positives ou aucune remarque. Les convictions, buts et affect ont été réévalués suite à ces
remarques. Les résultats montrent que les asiatiques n‟appuient pas la théorie d‟intelligence
incrémentale de façon plus significative que les caucasiens, que la maîtrise et la performance
chez les étudiants asiatiques sont hautement corrélés et que les étudiants caucasiens et asiatiques
sont significativement affectés par des remarques négative sur leur performance. Ces résultats
sont consistants avec une entité de recherches en constante évolution qui suggère que les
présentes conceptualisations sur les théories des buts d‟accomplissement sont valides à travers
les cultures.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful and appreciative to my thesis supervisor, Dr. Krista Muis, for her guidance
and insight during my thesis writing process. In addition, I thank the members of my lab, Gina
Franco, John Ranellucci, and Xihui Wang for their support and encouragement. I am most
grateful to my husband and my family who have shown me tremendous encouragement,
patience, and understanding throughout this process. In particular, I would like to thank my
parents, Nirmaladevi Sampasivam and Sampasivam Subramaniam, for always encouraging me
and for all the sacrifices they made so that I can be where I am today; to my two sisters,
Sinthujaa Sampasivam and Venuya Subramaniam for their long study nights, their support, and
their jokes; and to my husband Keethan Kathirgamanathan, for understanding the life of a
graduate student, for always believing in me and for his love. I would also like to thank the
Social Sciences and Human Research Council (SSHRC) for funding my thesis.
Table of Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………2
Résumé…………………………………………………………………………………………….3
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………..4
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………….5
Chapter 1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………….7
Chapter 2 Literature Review……………………………………………………………………8
Incremental versus Entity Theories of Intelligence……………………………………….8
Achievement Goal Theory………………………………………………………………...8
The Trichotomous Achievement Goal Framework……………………………………..11
A 2x2 achievement goal conceptualization……………………………………………...12
Multiple Goals Framework……………………………………………………………....13
Cross Cultural Differences in the link between Antecedent Beliefs and Achievement
Goals……………………………………………………………………..........................14
Asian Culture………………………………………………………………………….…14
Asian Theories of Intelligence…………………………………………………………...16
Asians and Achievement Goals…………………………………………….……………17
Feedback, Goals and Affect……………………………………………………………...20
Present Study………………………………………………………………………….....22
Chapter 3 Method………………………………………………………………………………24
Participants………………………………………………………………………………24
Materials…………………………………………………………………………………25
Procedure………………………………………………………………………………...28
Chapter 4 Results………………………………………………………………………………30
Preliminary Results………………………………………………………………………30
Theories of Intelligence………………………………………………………………….30
Achievement Goals………………………………………………………………………31
Performance Feedback and Affect……………………………………………………….32
Chapter 5 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………...34
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………34
Limitations……………………………………………………………………………….39
References……………………………………………………………………………………….41
Tables……………………………………………………………………………………………52
Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………56
Appendix A: Consent Form……………………………………………………………...56
Appendix B: Demographics Questionnaire……………………………………………...58
Appendix C: Implicit Theories of Intelligence Scale……………………………………59
Appendix D: Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale………………………………………60
Appendix E: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule……………………………………62
Appendix F: Math Task………………………………………………………………….63

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The goal of the present thesis is to examine cultural differences between the implicit
beliefs Asian and North American students hold about learning and the subsequent goal
structures they set for learning. In addition, the present thesis will explore the influence these
beliefs and goals have on well-being following success or failure. According to Morrone &
Pintrich (2006), lack of motivation is one of the most common reasons why students are
identified by teachers and parents as needing help following specific reading and behavioural
problems. There have been various theories proposed to account for the differences in motivation
among students (for example, Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Weiner, 1992). Current research has
found evidence for implicit theories students hold about learning as being important predictors of
the types of goals students set for learning and their subsequent motivation to learn (Morrone &
Pintrich, 2006).
The present study addresses the paucity of research examining cross-cultural differences
in the achievement goal theory framework (Graham & Hudley, 2005). This thesis is original in
that it is the first to examine the link between beliefs and goals cross-culturally. First, the
literature exploring theories of intelligence, achievement goals and the influence performance
feedback has on goals and affect is presented. Then research about Asian culture and Asian
students‟ beliefs about intelligence is presented. This is followed by hypotheses about how
differences in North American and Asian cultural beliefs about intelligence influence their goals
for learning and affect following different types of feedback, respectively.

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
Incremental versus Entity Theories of Intelligence
Previous research has found that students differ in the implicit theories they hold about
learning (Bandura & Dweck, 1985; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck, Tenney, & Dinces, 1982).
In particular, some students hold incremental theories of intelligence whereas others hold entity
theories of intelligence. According to Dweck and Leggett (1988), students who hold an
incremental theory of intelligence view intelligence as unstable and malleable. Because these
individuals view intelligence as being unstable, they perceive a positive relationship between
effort and ability, such that the harder they work, the smarter they become. These students are
not afraid of challenging tasks and often see them as an opportunity to learn. In addition, students
with incremental beliefs understand that making mistakes is a part of learning.
Students with an entity theory of intelligence view intelligence as a fixed, global trait
(Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Because these individuals view intelligence as fixed, they are very
concerned with demonstrating that they have a sufficient amount of it to others. In addition, these
individuals avoid difficult tasks because they do not want to put themselves in positions where
they may fail. Individuals with entity theories of intelligence further view effort as being
inversely related to ability. Therefore, if these learners have to work hard to succeed, they
believe that they must not be very smart.
Achievement Goal Theory
The theories students have about intelligence orient them towards adopting different
achievement goals. The specific type of goal individuals adopt is posited to create a framework
for how individuals interpret and experience achievement settings. Generally, two different
achievement goals have been differentiated in the achievement goal literature: mastery goals and
performance goals (Ames & Archer, 1987).
Mastery and performance goals represent different ways of interpreting success and
failure and different reasons for engaging in achievement activity. With a mastery goal,
individuals are oriented toward developing new skills, trying to understand their work,
improving their level of competence, or achieving a sense of mastery based on self-referenced
standards (Ames, 1992; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Nicholls, 1989). Mastery goals
have been associated with a number of positive outcomes such as preference for challenging
work (Ames & Archer, 1988; Elliot & Dweck, 1988), an intrinsic interest in learning (Meece,
Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Stipek & Kowlski, 1989), and positive attitudes toward learning
(Ames & Archer, 1988). Individuals with mastery goals spend more time on learning tasks
(Butler, 1987) and persist longer in the face of difficulty (Elliott & Dweck, 1988).
Individuals with performance goals view ability as evidenced by doing better than others,
by surpassing normative-based standards, or by achieving success with little effort (Ames, 1984;
Covington, 1984). Especially important to individuals with performance goals is public
recognition that they have done better than others or performed in a superior manner (Covington
& Berry, 1976; Meece et al., 1988). A performance goal orientation has been associated with an
avoidance of challenging tasks (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988),
negative affect following failure as well as self-perceptions that one is not smart (Jagacinski &
Nicholls, 1987), positive affect following success with little effort (Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1984),
and the use of superficial or short-term learning strategies, such as rote memorization (Meece et
al., 1988; Nolen, 1988). Performance goals have also been associated with experiencing negative
affect and anxiety about making mistakes (Ames, 1984; Turner, Thorpe, & Meyer, 1998) and
self-handicapping behaviour (Midgley & Urdan, 2001).
Although many studies have revealed that the adoption of performance goals leads to a
number of negative consequences, a substantial number also indicate that performance goals
have no discernable influence or even facilitate some adaptive achievement behaviour
(Harackiewicz, Barron & Elliot, 1998; see also Urdan, 1997; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996). For
example, mastery goals have been found to be unrelated to performance outcomes in several
studies (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot et al., 1999; Skaalvik, 1997),
whereas performance goals have been associated with achievement (Elliot & Church, 1997;
Harackiewicz et al., 2002). In Harackiewicz et al.‟s (2002) review they evaluated goal effects on
performance and interest outcomes and found that performance goals are low to moderately
positively correlated with academic performance outcomes such as exam scores, course grades
and subsequent GPAs. They found little or no correlation between mastery goals and
performance outcomes, although a modest positive correlation was found between mastery goals
and interest outcomes, such as interest in class and enjoyment of lectures.
Individuals with mastery and performance goals have been found to differ in their
theories of intelligence. In particular, individuals with incremental theories typically hold
mastery goals for learning whereas individuals with entity theories of intelligence hold
performance goals for learning (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Leggett; 1985; Stipek & Gralinski,
1996). For example, Leggett‟s (1985) study linking beliefs with goals in a junior high school
sample showed that 60.9 percent of students hold incremental beliefs accompanied by mastery
goals, whereas 81.8 percent of students held entity beliefs accompanied by performance goals. In
comparison, 39.1 percent and 18.2 percent of students fall into the incremental belief-
performance goal and entity belief-mastery goal frameworks, respectively.
The Trichotomous Achievement Goal Framework
A number of researchers have proposed a revised trichotomous achievement goal
framework (Elliot, 1997; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Middleton &
Midgley, 2007; Pintrich, 2000). In this framework, the performance goal construct is divided into
separate approach and avoidance orientations. This differentiation creates three independent
achievement goals: a mastery goal, focused on developing competence or attaining task mastery,
a performance-approach goal, focused on outperforming others and displaying one‟s
competence; and a performance-avoidance goal, focused on not looking incompetent compared
to others. Individuals with mastery goals tend to have intra-individual standards for performance
and are concerned with how they are progressing and performing relative to how they were
performing. In contrast, individual with both performance-approach and performance-avoidance
goals have inter-individual standards for performance where they are concerned with how they
are performing relative to others. Mastery goals and performance-approach goals are construed
as approach orientations because they involve striving to attain positive possibilities (Elliot,
1999). The performance-avoidance goal is construed as an avoidance orientation, because it
involves striving to avoid negative possibilities.
The delineation of approach and avoidance performance goals has been found to clarify
the empirical picture regarding the consequences of adopting performance goals. Factor analytic
work has validated the independence of the three goal constructs (Elliot & Church, 1997;
Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997; Vandewalle, 1997) and the goals have been linked
to differential patterns of antecedents and consequences (Elliot, 1999). In general, performance-

approach goals have been linked to both adaptive and maladaptive sets of processes and
outcomes whereas performance-avoidance goals have been linked to negative, maladaptive sets
of processes and outcomes (Elliot, 1999).
In particular, the adoption of performance-approach goals has been linked to the
following positive consequences: higher levels of aspiration, absorption during task engagement,
effort while studying, persistence while studying, high performance outcomes, and intrinsic
motivation (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Middleton & Midgley,
1997; Skaalvik, 1997). Performance-approach goals have been linked to the following negative
consequences: test anxiety during evaluation, shallow processing of information, and an
unwillingness to seek help with schoolwork (Middleton & Midgley, 1997). Performance-
avoidance goals have mainly been associated with a number of negative consequences such as
disorganized studying, an unwillingness to seek help with schoolwork, shallow processing of
information, wanting to escape evaluation, anxiety prior to and during evaluation, poor retention
of information, poor performance, and reduced intrinsic motivation (Elliot & Harackiewicz,
1996; McGregor & Elliot, 1999; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997).
A 2 x 2 Achievement Goal Conceptualization
The three types of achievement goals; that is, performance-approach, performance-
avoidance and mastery are presumed to be the most prevalent forms of goals adopted in a
majority of achievement settings. However, mastery goals have also more recently been
differentiated into approach and avoidance orientations (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Mastery-
avoidance goals entail striving to avoid losing one‟s skills and abilities, forgetting what one has
learned, misunderstanding material or leaving a task incomplete or unmastered. Mastery
avoidance goals may be common, for example, among elderly individuals who find their
physical and cognitive abilities to be in decline, perfectionists who strive to avoid making any
mistakes and individuals in the latter part of their careers or lives who begin to focus on not
performing worse than before and not stagnating or losing their skills and abilities (Pintrich,
2000). There is strong support for this new 2 x 2 achievement goal framework (Elliot and
McGregor, 2001).
Multiple Goals Framework
Although the four orientations have been established to be independent (Elliot and
McGregor, 2001), recent research has found support for the possibility that students can adopt
multiple goals. It has been suggested, for example, that students can endorse both mastery and
performance goals and different levels of both of these goals (Meece & Holt, 1993; Pintrich &
Garcia, 1991). Pintrich (2000) evaluated the consequences of adopting multiple goals in a sample
of junior high school students in mathematics classrooms. He found that students adopting high-
mastery/high-performance goals benefit from the same positive motivational consequences (high
motivation, affect and strategy use) as those students who adopt high-mastery/low-performance
goals. If differences were found, the means favoured the high mastery/high performance group.
These results suggest that high performance-approach goals, when coupled with high mastery
goals, do not reduce or dampen the general positive effect of adopting high mastery goals only.
The results for the low-mastery/high-performance group, however, were consistent with the
predictions of normative achievement goal theory; that is, this group did not have an adaptive
pattern of motivation, affect or strategy use. Harackiewicz et al. (2002) proposed the need for
more research on younger and more diverse populations to understand the role of multiple goals
in facilitating or constraining student motivation, cognition, and learning.

Cross Cultural Differences in the Link between Antecedent Beliefs and Achievement Goals
Despite achievement goal theory‟s popularity, systematic investigation into the validity
of normative achievement goal theory across cultures has been quite rare (Graham & Hudley,
2005). The present study aims to extend present achievement goal theory by evaluating the
current framework with a sample of Asian emigrant students. In particular, the present study
examines cultural differences between implicit beliefs students hold about learning and
subsequent goal structures they set for learning; and, explores the influence these beliefs have on
student achievement and well-being following success or failure.
Although there are many definitions for the term culture, generally, culture is viewed as a
shared way of life for a group of socially interacting people (Johnson & Johnson, 2002). This
includes shared knowledge, beliefs, and values, as well as norms for behaviour. Because our
worldview is not necessarily universal across cultures, and is simply a specialized tool for coping
with our environment, a Chinese student who fails an exam, for example, may not react the same
as a Canadian student who faces the same situation.
Asian Culture
Asians belong to diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds marked by a variety of
languages, religions and geopolitical situations (Ho, 1991). Hence, it is difficult to study Asian
cultures as a single entity. Despite this, for the purposes of this study and because there are
important similarities between East Asian cultures, in the current study the term Asian will be
used to refer to East Asian students who come from China, Japan and Hong Kong, Taiwan, and
Korea.
East Asian culture is based on the teachings of Confucius and emphasizes social harmony
through education (Hess, Chang, & McDevitt, 1982). The secret to good education, according to
Confucian philosophy, is hard work and effort. Collectivism is also an important aspect of the
Asian culture. Collectivism places more emphasis on the needs, interests and goals of the group
(such as, family and/or society) than on the individual. In addition, great importance is attached
to cooperation and interdependence (Hofstede, 1980). Hence, in collectivistic cultures, the
academic success of a child is a great source of pride for the entire family, whereas academic
failure is perceived as letting one‟s family down or causing the family to lose face (Stevenson,
Smith, & Mao, 1985).
High value is also placed on education in Asian cultures. Asian parents, for example, are
very involved in their children‟s learning. Studies in Taiwan and Hong Kong have shown that
parents spend between thirty minutes to more than three hours per day helping their children
with school work (Ho, 1991; Lin, 1988). Asian parents and teachers also set very high standards
of achievement for students regardless of the level of their ability (Stevenson & Lee, 1990). Poor
performance is seen as an indication of a lack of effort, and not ability. In addition, parents also
often express negative attitudes towards the poor performance of their children (Hess et al.,
1982). The power of the group is used as a means of motivating children; for example, parents
remind their children that failure to do well in school will bring shame to the whole family. In
addition, children are made aware that poor grades not only cause the family to lose face but this
will also cause others to regard the family as not fulfilling its duties towards their child. Thus,
failure in a Western society is a reflection on the individual but failure in an Eastern society can
be viewed, by virtue of the interdependent conception of self, as a reflection of family members
as well as the individual.
Because school work is considered a filial duty among Asian students, they work hard to
make their parents happy and proud. A comparative study of American, Japanese, Taiwanese and
Chinese students by Stevenson and Stigler (1992) showed that most Asian students see school as
central to their life whereas American students do not. In addition, Asian students have been
found to maintain more positive attitudes toward school, stress the role of effort over ability for
academic success, and take more initiative in their own learning (Asakawa & Csikzentmihalyi,
1998; Chen & Stevenson, 1995; Holloway, 1988). This suggests that because Asian students are
socialised to value education and also consider it a duty towards their parents, they assume more
personal responsibility for their own learning by devoting more time and effort to their studies
than do Western students.
Asian Theories of Intelligence
Data from surveys comparing Asians‟, Asian Americans‟ and non-Asians' attribution of
academic success (Holloway, 1988) show Asians and Asian Americans attribute their academic
success and failure primarily to effort over ability, whereas non-Asians view ability as their
reason for success. Stevenson and Stigler‟s (1992) cross national comparison found that Asian
parents, teachers and students are much more likely to adopt an incremental approach to
education than the US. Similarly, Shikanani (1978) found that Japanese college students who
were led to believe that they had failed an anagram task were most likely to choose “lack of
effort” rather than “lack of ability,” “task difficulty” or “luck” as the cause of their failure. In the
West, studies have revealed that students in general, and older students in particular, value
achievement through ability (Nicholls, 1976) more than through effort (Covington & Omelich,
1979).
Asian mothers also make attributions of effort over ability for their children‟s successes
and failures. Chinese mothers living in China, for example, cited lack of effort as the main cause
of their children‟s failure in mathematics (Hess et al., 1982). American mothers, on the other
hand, attributed their children‟s failure equally to ability, luck and effort. In addition, when
moms of elementary schools in Minneapolis and Taipei were asked how early in a child‟s life
they thought it is possible to predict scores on achievement tests that would be given at the end
of high school, mothers from the two cultures differed vastly in their responses (Stevenson &
Stigler, 1992). Thirty-eight percent of mothers from Minneapolis and only ten percent of Chinese
moms believed it was possible to make such a prediction. These results are reflective of the
cultural view that intelligence is fixed versus more malleable, respectively.
Asians and Achievement Goals
Although there is consistency in the literature that Asian students tend to hold
incremental theories of intelligence (Hess et al.,1982; Holloway, 1988; Shikanani, 1978;
Stevenson & Stigler, 1992); that is, they believe that intelligence is malleable and can be
increased through effort, the literature is less clear about the types of achievement goals Asian
students set for learning. According to normative achievement goal theory, because Asian
students tend to have incremental theories of intelligence, they should adopt mastery goals for
learning. Different researchers have proposed different hypotheses and found different results in
terms of the types of goals Asian students set for learning, however (Dweck,1999; Lee, Aaker, &
Gardner, 2000; Rao, Moley, & Sachs, 2000; Saili, Chiu, & Lai, 2001; Shi et al., 2001) .
For example, Dweck (1999) proposed that although Asian students tend to have
incremental theories of intelligence, their cultural context encourages the adoption of
performance goals for learning. Dweck argued that although the Asian school system and
method of instruction has been described as focused on malleable intelligence and effort
(Stevenson et al., 1990; Stigler, Lee & Stevenson, 1987), this emphasis on malleable intelligence
and effort is often accompanied by performance goals wherein Asian students are very
concerned about not wanting to shame their families and wanting to perform better than others.
In support of Dweck‟s view, Stevenson et al. (1994) have also found that Asian students
experience some of the negative consequences associated with performance goals. They found
that Chinese students suffer from learning problems, such as lower confidence in their ability and
higher test anxiety, which are typically associated with ability attributions. In addition, Chinese
students report a higher frequency of depression and more frequent disorders of sleeping and
eating than American students and cited school situations as the greatest source of depression
(whereas American students cited relationships with peers). Chinese students were also more
likely to report that their parents‟ expectations for them were too high, and this was highly
correlated with frequency of depression and physical symptoms. These findings suggest that
despite attributions of effort in Chinese cultures, these students may simultaneously be
experiencing some of the negative consequences that accompany the adoption of strong
performance goals.
Another line of research suggests that individuals with a dominant independent view of
self would be more likely to endorse approach oriented goals, whereas individuals with a
dominant interdependent view of self would prefer more avoidance oriented goals (Lee, Aaker,
& Gardner, 2000). Because Asian cultures tend to be collectivistic and individuals within that
culture want to excel academically not only for their own sakes but also for the sake of their
families, they may be more avoidance oriented. Asians may be more inclined to avoid
performing poorly (performance-avoidance) and disappointing others rather than want to
perform well (performance-approach). Lee et al. (2000) tested this hypothesis in a series of
studies and found that Asians endorsed comparatively higher levels of performance-avoidance
goals. They exposed both Caucasian and Asian participants to either independent or
interdependent self-construal primes. Thus participants were exposed to words (primes) which
made participants think that they are independent or part of a group (interdependent). They
hypothesized that independent primes would lead to the endorsement of approach goals and
interdependent primes would be related to the endorsement of avoidance goals. They found that
generally, those students who received the independent self-prime , regardless of whether they
were Caucasian or Asian, were more likely to report high levels of both mastery-approach and
performance-approach goals. These results suggest that individuals from individualistic cultures
may be more likely to endorse approach goals whereas individuals from collectivistic cultures
may be more likely to endorse avoidance goals.
Another body of research suggests that due to the cultural context in which Asians are
raised, they should be more likely to adopt both high-mastery and high-performance goals (Rao,
Moley, & Sachs, 2000; Saili, Chiu, & Lai, 2001; Shi et al., 2001). A number of studies, for
example, have found a positive correlation between mastery and performance-approach goals
among Chinese students than Western students (Rao, Moley, & Sachs, 2000; Saili, Chiu, & Lai,
2001; Shi et al., 2001). Zusho and Njoku (2007) recently found that the theoretical distinction
between mastery and performance goals is not precise, particularly for those students from
interdependent cultures. The authors concluded that the adoption of a combined mastery and
performance-approach would be quite adaptive in a cultural environment where achievement and
social comparison are closely linked. In addition, the authors argued that there is a dichotomy in
the way that the Chinese conceive of leaning. In particular, in the Chinese culture, mastery is
emphasized as a means to high achievement. However, high achievement is often conceptualized

in terms of one‟s performance relative to that of other people. This conception of learning may
be highly conducive to the adoption of both high mastery and high performance-approach goals.
The objective of the present study is to explore Asian students‟ beliefs about intelligence
and their subsequent goals for learning, as well as changes in beliefs, goals and affect following
competence-based feedback. Early researchers in the achievement goal literature (Dweck &
Elliot, 1983) suggested that performance-approach and avoidance goals are much more likely to
be regulated based on feedback whereas mastery goals are more robust and less affected by
performance feedback. Presently, research in the area of goal stability shows that the three
achievement goals tend to be regulated based on feedback (Fryer & Elliot, 2007; Muis &
Edwards, 2009; Senko & Harackiewicz, 2001).
Feedback, Goals, and Affect
Senko and Harackiewicz (2001), for example, conducted two studies with college
students in order to evaluate changes in goal pursuit after receiving early positive or negative
competence feedback. The first study was conducted in the classroom and students‟ goals were
assessed at the beginning of the semester and after they received their exam grades. Senko and
Harackiewicz (2001) showed that students generally continued to pursue the goals they had
pursued at the beginning of the semester at the end of the semester. However, they also found
some changes in goal pursuit; in particular, some students switched from a performance-
avoidance goal to an approach goal after doing well on the midterms, or from an approach goal
to a performance-avoidance goal after doing poorly. There was also some regulation of mastery
goals independent of performance goals.
In a second laboratory study, participants completed two sets of mathematics problems
and reported their achievement goals prior to each set. After the first problem set, participants
were provided with positive, negative, or no competence feedback on a random basis. This
allowed a direct causal test of whether mastery goal endorsement increases following positive
feedback or decreases following negative feedback. Study 2 failed to replicate the switching
between the two performance goals, but also found that mastery goals were regulated. These
results show that not only are performance goals subject to regulation as earlier researchers
proposed but that mastery goals can also be regulated following feedback.
In relation to Asian students and affect, it has been suggested that Asian students are
more motivated by failure feedback than success feedback. Heine et al. (2001) found, for
example, that North Americans who received negative feedback on a task persisted less on a
follow-up task whereas Japanese put in more effort. In addition, Japanese who failed also
enhanced the importance of the task compared with those who succeeded whereas North
Americans did the opposite. North Americans tend to be sensitive to information indicating their
strengths, and they pursue activities that enable them to further affirm their positive
characteristics. These results are consistent with North American students‟ entity theories of
intelligence and Asian students‟ incremental theories of intelligence. Because North Americans
generally view intelligence as being fixed and immutable, negative feedback should be highly
threatening to their self-esteems. In contrast, Asians tend to view intelligence as being malleable
and therefore receiving negative feedback should not be as self-threatening to them. In addition,
in Asian cultures, the standard of achievement is extremely high and geared towards the brightest
and highest achievers in the classroom. Students are seldom praised or given reward for good
performance (Salili & Hau, 1994; Salili, Hwang, & Choi, 1989). In contrast, punishment for
poor performance is administered frequently. Therefore, one may expect that Asian students will
not be as negatively affected by negative performance feedback in comparison to North
Americans.
Present Study
Given the paucity of research evaluating cross-cultural differences in the link between
beliefs and goals for learning as well as affect following performance feedback (Graham &
Hudley, 2005), the present study evaluated cross-cultures differences within the achievement
goal framework through the study of North American Caucasian students and Asian emigrant
students. Caucasians who have been educated in North America from kindergarten and Asians
who came to Canada within the last three years participated in the current study. This was to
ensure that both groups of students were exposed to and familiar with the norms and beliefs
related to education and intelligence in their respective cultures. Three hypotheses are proposed.
The first hypothesis is that, consistent with previous studies (e.g., Holloway, 1988; Hess et al.,
1982; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992), Asian students will hold higher levels of incremental theories
of intelligence and Caucasians will hold higher levels of entity theories of intelligence. In
relation to achievement goals, the second hypothesis proposed is that Asian students will
simultaneously adopt high levels of both mastery and performance goals whereas Caucasian
students will not. This is because Asian students live in a culture where effort and high
performance is valued simultaneously (Zusho & Njoku, 2007).
The influence these beliefs have on student achievement and well-being following
success or failure on a mathematics task will also be assessed. In recent years, there has been
some movement away from a strong trait-like perspective in the motivation literature and toward
a more domain-specific viewpoint (Alexander, Murphy, & Kulikowich, 1998; Pintrich, 1994).
Students‟ interests, self-efficacy beliefs, and goals are seen to vary depending on the domain it is
assessed in, such as, mathematics, science, or history (Murphy & Alexander, 2000). Therefore, in
the present study, the specific domain of mathematics was used.
In relation to affect, the third hypothesis proposed is that Caucasian students will express
more negative affect in response to negative feedback and more positive affect following
positive feedback compared to Asian students. This hypothesis is proposed because Asian
students come from a culture that values effort and consistently improving oneself (Heine et al.,
2001) and therefore, it is hypothesized that Asian students will be less likely to report changes in
affect following positive or negative feedback. In addition, individuals in East Asian cultures are
socialized to attend selectively to negative attributes and aspects of themselves that are seen as
improvable (Heine et al., 2001). In contrast, Caucasian students view intelligence as a fixed trait
and receiving positive performance feedback will provide Caucasian students with the feedback
that they are “smart” people whereas receiving negative performance feedback will make
Caucasian students perceive themselves as “dumb.” In relation to the control condition, it is
expected that there will not be significant differences across groups as there has been no previous
research suggesting that Asians or Caucasians as a group tend to report more negative or positive
affect. Moreover, from pretest to posttest, given that students in the control group will not
receive any performance feedback, there should be no change in achievement goals.

CHAPTER 3
Method
Participants
In total, ninety-six students (34 males, 73 females) at McGill University participated in
the study. Participants‟ ages ranged from 18 to 42 years (M = 22.71, SD = 4.29). Of the ninety-
six participants, fifty-nine were Caucasian (14 males, 45 females) and thirty-eight were Asian
(20 males, 28 females). Caucasian participants‟ ages ranged from 18 to 29 years (M = 21.59, SD
= 2.57). Participants were from Canada (n = 38), USA (n = 18), Poland (n = 1) and Romania (n
= 1). Asian participants‟ ages ranged from 18 to 42 years (M = 24.41, SD = 5.70). The Asian
students were from China (n = 23), Japan (n = 5), Hong Kong (n = 4), Taiwan (n = 1), Korea
(n=2), and Singapore (n = 1). Two students were born in North America but were educated in
Asia. Asian participants‟ stay in Canada ranged from one month to three years (M = 1.87, SD =
1.55).
Participants were recruited through the McGill classifieds, an advertisement website for
McGill students. The ad informed potential participants that a graduate student in the Department
of Educational and Counselling Psychology at McGill University is seeking Caucasian and
emigrant undergraduate students from Asia who have moved to North America within the last
three years to participate in a study. Potential participants were further informed that the study is
designed to assess undergraduate students‟ learning styles and involves completing
questionnaires and some brief mathematics tasks. Potential participants were further told that the
study will be an hour in length and that they will be compensated $10 for their participation.
Materials
The study commenced after receiving ethics approval (see Appendix A). When
participants came to the lab to participate, all participants received a consent form before starting
(see Appendix B). Following this, participants were given a package of questionnaires that
included: 1) a demographics questionnaire (see Appendix C); 2) the Implicit Theories of
Intelligence Scale (ITIS, Hong, Chiu, & Dweck, 1995; see Appendix D) to measure participants’
theory of intelligence; 3) the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale (PALS; Midgley et al., 1998;
see Appendix E) to measure their achievement goals and, 4) the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988; Appendix F) to measure their positive and
negative affect. Following the completion of the questionnaires, participants were given a text
that showed them a novel way to do cross-multiplication problems and a set of mathematics
problems to solve (see Appendix G). This procedure has been used by Senko and Harackiewicz
(2005) in their study about goal stability and performance feedback.
Demographics Questionnaire
First, participants completed a demographics questionnaire. The questionnaire included
questions related to participants‟ age, gender, cultural background (e.g., where were you born,
how long have you been living in North America) and educational history (e.g., what is your
grade point average, academic major and year of study).
Theory of Intelligence
The Implicit Theories of Intelligence Scale (ITIS) by Hong, Chiu, and Dweck (1995) was
used as a measure of students‟ implicit beliefs about intelligence. This measure consists of six
items: three entity theory statements (e.g., „„You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you
really can‟t do much to change it‟‟); and three incremental theory statements (e.g., „„You can
always greatly change how intelligent you are‟‟). Participants recorded their responses on a scale
of 1 to 6 where 1 represented a pure entity theory and 6 represented a pure incremental theory.
The internal reliability for the present sample on the incremental theory scale was high at T1
(alpha = .88) and T2 (alpha = .87). The correlation between the two scores was .78. The internal
reliability on the entity scale was also high at both T1 (alpha = .89) and T2 (alpha = .90). The
correlation between the two scores was .79.
Achievement Goals
The Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale (PALS), a 14-item questionnaire, was used to
assess students‟ goal structures (Midgley et al., 1998). There are five mastery items, five
performance-approach items and four performance-avoidance items. Sample mastery goal items
include, “I enjoy working on tasks that make me think,” and “Learning about new things is
important to me.” Sample performance-approach goal items include, “It is important for me to do
better than any other students on this test,” and “I am motivated by the thought of outperforming
the other participants in this study.” Sample performance-avoidance goal items include “In
mathematics, one of my goals in class is to avoid looking like I have trouble doing the work” and
“In mathematics, it‟s important to me that my teacher doesn‟t think that I know less than others
in class.”
Participants recorded their responses on a scale of 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). For
the present sample, the internal reliability for the three scales were high at T1: mastery (alpha=
.90), performance-approach (.91), performance-avoidance (.83) and T2: mastery (alpha=.92),
performance-approach (.96), performance-avoidance (.88). The correlation between mastery
goals, performance-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals at time 1 and time 2 was
.89, .90 and .88 respectively.

Affect
Participants‟ affect was assessed using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS; Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988). It is a 20-item self-report measure of positive and
negative affect which consists of 10 positive affects (interested, excited, strong, enthusiastic,
proud, alert, inspired, determined, attentive, and active) and 10 negative affects (distressed,
upset, guilty, scared, hostile, irritable, ashamed, nervous, jittery, and afraid). Participants were
asked to rate the items on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 represents experiencing a certain emotion
very slightly whereas 5 represents experiencing a given emotion strongly. The internal reliability
of the measure for the present sample on the positive affect scale was high at T1 (alpha=.88) and
T2 (.90). The correlation between the two scores was .70. The internal reliability on the negative
affect scale was also high at both T1 (alpha = .85) and T2 (alpha = .88). The correlation between
the two scores was .55.
Mathematics Task
Participants were taught a novel technique for cross-multiplication (Flansburg & Hays,
1994) with a folder of materials that has been used in previous achievement-goal research (Baron
& Harackiewicz, 2001). This left to right technique allows participants to solve multiplication
problems more quickly than the conventional way. After learning the technique by reading the
text for ten minutes, participants were given five minutes to solve 5 practice problems.
Participants were allowed the text to help them solve the practice questions. At the end of the
five minutes, participants were given “Mathematics Task 1” which included the problems they
were going to be evaluated on. This sheet had 24 multiplication questions. Half of the problems
were 2 digit by 2 digit problems and half were 3 digit by 3 digit problems. Participants were
given seven minutes to solve these problems. They were assured that it is difficult to solve all 24
problems in only seven minutes and they should try and solve as many as possible. Participants
were further told that they may receive feedback about their performance.
Feedback
After completing the mathematics problems, participants were randomly assigned to
either a (a) Negative Feedback Condition (N), (b) Positive Feedback Condition (P), or (c) No
Feedback Control Condition (C). Participants in the N condition were given the following
negative performance feedback: “you preformed worse than 70% of other students on this task”.
Participants in the P condition were given the following positive performance feedback: “you
preformed better than 70% of other students on this task”. Participants in the C condition were
given no performance feedback.
Participants were given a performance feedback sheet on which it stated: “This study is part
of a larger study looking at the mathematics performance of students who learn a novel
mathematics task at top universities across North America. Compared to other students at these
universities who learnt this task for the first time you performed in the _________ percentile
which means that you performed ________________________________________ other
students who learned the right-to-left multiplication technique for the first time.” Five
participants completed pilots and modifications were made to the feedback sheet in order to
make it more credible.
Procedure
When participants arrived at the lab, they were given the consent form to read and sign.
After signing the consent form, participants received a verbal description of the study and the
procedure. Participants were told that they would be required to fill out some questionnaires and
then they will be given a text to read that will teach them a novel way to solve mathematics
problems. Participants were further told that they might receive feedback about their
performance. Following this description, participants were given the first series of questionnaires
to complete. The order of the three questionnaires was counterbalanced across participants.
Following the completion of the questionnaires, participants were given the mathematics text to
read for the duration of ten minutes. After reading the text, participants were given five minutes
to complete five practice questions with the help of the text. Once the five minutes were over,
participants were given the “Mathematics Task 1” problems to solve for the duration of seven
minutes. Once the seven minutes were over, the experimenter picked up the mathematics
problems from the participants and corrected them on a desk away from the participant.
“Standardization” graphs were used in the view of the participants to compare the participants
grades with that of other participants and participants were given the feedback sheet with their
score after five minutes. The graphs were used to ensure that the feedback appeared credible.
After participants were given one minute to read the feedback sheet, they were given the three
questionnaires again. When participants completed the study, they were debriefed and
compensated. Participants were reminded not to disclose details about the study to others who
may potentially participate.

CHAPTER 4
Results
Preliminary Analyses
According to Kline‟s (2005) recommendation, kurtosis values between -8 to +8 are
considered normal and skewness values between -3 and +3 are considered normal. In the present
study, kurtosis values ranged from -.99 and 2.93 whereas skewness values ranged from -.43 and
1.59. All variables were normally distributed (see Tables 1 and 2).
Theories of Intelligence
The present study was designed to assess cross-cultural differences in Caucasian and
Asian students‟ beliefs about intelligence, their goals for learning and affect following positive
and negative performance feedback. In terms of beliefs about intelligence, it was hypothesized
that Asians will hold higher levels of incremental beliefs at pretest as a result of the cultural
context in which they grew up. In order to measure differences between the two groups, an
independent t-test was carried out. Results showed that this hypothesis was not supported; that is,
Caucasians and Asians did not differ significantly in their initial theories of intelligence. Mean
scores showed that Caucasian students held similar levels of incremental theories of intelligence
(M=3.67, SD=1.13) as Asian students (M = 3.31, SD = 1.25), t(94) = -1.51, p = .55. In addition,
Caucasian students held similar levels of entity theories of intelligence (M = 3.63, SD = 1.13) as
Asian students (M = 3.46, SD = 1.10), t(94) = -.732, p = .47. Across groups, the endorsement of
incremental theory of intelligence increased over time, whereas that for entity theory decreased
over time regardless of the feedback condition participants were assigned to.
Achievement Goals
The second hypothesis was that Asian students will adopt higher levels of both mastery
and performance goals at pretest compared to Caucasian students. An independent t-test was
carried out in order to test this hypothesis. Although there was not a significant difference, the
means were in the expected direction showing that Asian students were more mastery oriented
(M = 3.90, SD = .82) than Caucasian students (M = 3.13, SD = 1.05), t(94) = 3.81, p = .15. In
addition, the trend supports the hypothesis that Asian students were more performance-approach
oriented (M = 2.66, SD = 1.03) compared to Caucasian students (M = 2.45, SD = .95), t(94) =
1.05, p = .71 although there were no significant differences between groups. Caucasian students
and Asian students endorsed performance-avoidance goals equally (M = 2.70, SD = .96 for
Asians and M = 2.70, SD = 1.01 for Caucasians), t (94) = .08, p = .62.
In addition, correlations between the achievement goals across the two groups were
evaluated in order to assess whether, consistent with previous research, mastery and
performance-approach goals tend to be correlated among Asian students and not Caucasian
students (Rao, Moley, & Sachs, 2000; Saili, Chiu, & Lai, 2001; Shi et al., 2001). Consistent with
previous research, significant correlations were found at pretest between mastery and
performance-approach goals (.45), and mastery and performance-avoidance goals (.40) for the
Asian sample. Performance-approach goals at pre-test were also significantly correlated with
performance-avoidance goals at pre-test (.81). For the Caucasian sample, mastery goals at pre-
test were not correlated with either performance-approach or avoidance goals. Performance-
avoidance and approach goals were significantly correlated (.85). These results provide
additional support for the view that Asian students simultaneously adopt both mastery and
performance goals. See Table 3 and 4 for all correlations between goals.
Correlations between the two theories of intelligence and the three achievement goals
were also explored. General trends showed that for both groups, incremental theories were
positively correlated with the adoption of mastery goals and entity theories were positively
correlated with the adoption of performance goals. However, the correlation between
incremental beliefs and mastery goals for the Asian group (.07) was smaller than that for the
Caucasian group (.21) whereas the correlation between entity beliefs and performance goals
were similar across groups (.11 and .06 for performance-approach and .02 and .03 for
performance-avoidance for Asians and Caucasians respectively). These correlations were not
statistically significant. These trends suggest, however, that the link between incremental
theories of intelligence and mastery goals may not be as clear and direct for Asians as it is for
Caucasians. See Table 5 and 6 for all correlations between beliefs and goals.
Performance Feedback and Affect
The third hypothesis proposed in the present study was that Caucasian students will
regulate their affect significantly more in response to performance feedback compared to Asian
students. In order to test this hypothesis, an ANCOVA was conducted, using pretest scores as the
covariate, posttest scores as the dependent variable and both group and feedback type as the
independent variables. First, a significant PANAS * group interaction was found, F(1,90) = 4.27,
p < .05. The partial eta square value was medium (.05), Cohen (1988). In particular, Asians (M
= 1.56, SD = .62) expressed significantly higher levels of negative affect at the beginning of the
study compared to the Caucasians (M = 1.47, SD = .39), t(95) = 0.95, p < .05. No other
differences were found between the Caucasian and Asian groups.
A significant interaction was also found between time*condition*PANAS, F(2,90) =
2.57, p < .05. The partial eta square value was medium (.12), Cohen (1988). Post hoc
comparisons using the Fisher LSD test revealed that all participants (regardless of ethnicity) in
the negative feedback condition reported significant decrease in their endorsement of positive
affect (M = 2.43, SD = .86) from pretest compared to students in both the positive feedback
group (M = 2.76, SD = .79) and in the control group (M = 2.76, SD = .80), t(31) = 3.00, p < .05.
In contrast to the proposed hypothesis, this suggests that regardless of ethnicity, participants
were significantly affected by receiving negative performance feedback. No differences were
found in participants‟ endorsement of positive affect following positive feedback (See Table 2
for means). The effect size was almost medium (d=.48).

CHAPTER 5
Discussion
The objectives of the proposed research were to examine cultural differences between
implicit beliefs students hold about learning and subsequent goal structures they set for learning;
and, to explore the influence these beliefs have on student achievement and well-being following
success or failure. Asian and Caucasian students participated in the current study. Three
hypotheses were proposed; that is, it was hypothesized that Asian students will hold higher levels
of incremental theories of intelligence compared to Caucasian students, that Asian students will
hold both high mastery and performance goals, and that Caucasian and Asian students will differ
in their responses to performance feedback. In relation to responses to performance feedback, it
was hypothesized that Caucasian students will regulate their affect significantly more than Asian
students in response to both negative and positive performance feedback. The two groups were
hypothesized to not significantly differ in their affect reported across the control condition.
The results of the present study revealed that there are interesting differences in the link
between beliefs, goals and affect across groups. First, contrary to previous findings (e.g.,
Holloway, 1988; Hess et al., 1982; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992), the present study did not find that
Asian students tend to hold incremental theories of intelligence. No significant differences were
found between Asians and Caucasians in the types of beliefs they have about intelligence. These
results may be explained by a number of different factors. First, in the present study, the Asian
sample was very small (n = 38 and n = 12 in each condition). Therefore, one might expect that if
the study was continued with a larger Asian sample size, expected results might be found.
Second, discrepant findings from previous studies may have occurred due to the way
theory of intelligence was assessed. In particular, in the present study, theory of intelligence was
assessed using a questionnaire measure, the ITIS (Hong, Chiu, & Dweck, 1995). However, all of
the studies cited in the present thesis which found that Asians tend to make effort attributions and
Caucasians tend to make ability attributions, did not use questionnaire measures to assess
theories of intelligence. For example, in Holloways‟ (1988) review, researchers in all of the
studies he cited assessed participants‟ theories of intelligence by either asking them to explain
why they performed poorly and asking them to attribute it to effort or ability (Hayami, 1981;
Haymi 1984; Holloway et al., 1986; Lebra, 1976; Stevenson et al., 1994) or by asking
participants to indicate the importance of ability, luck, and effort in accounting for academic
achievement (Hayami & Hasegawa, 1979). Similarly, in Shikanani‟s (1978) study, Japanese
college students were asked to explain why they failed on an anagram task and the explanations
they proposed were used to determine their theories of intelligence. Hess et al.‟s (1982) study
also assessed theories of intelligence similarly although it was conducted with Asian mothers.
Finally, Stevenson and Stigler‟s (1992) study assessed theories of intelligence by asking mothers
from Minneapolis and China to predict their child‟s performance in the future. It is clear, then,
that all of the studies cited assessing Asian students‟ and parents‟ theories of intelligence used
vastly different ways of determining theories of intelligence compared to the present study.
In the present study, the ITIS was used to assess theory of intelligence. This measure, in
contrast to the other measures, is a self-report questionnaire in order to tap into theories of
intelligence. Not only is the ITIS a self-report questionnaire measure, but in contrast to the
previous studies which asked participants questions relating to making attributions for failure,
the items on the ITIS relate to agreeing or disagreeing about having a certain amount of
intelligence and not being able to change it or being able to change it. For example, items on the
IT IS include “In mathematics, you have a certain amount of intelligence, and you really can‟t do
much to change it” and “In mathematics, your intelligence is something about you that you can‟t
change very much.” Therefore, the questions on the ITIS ask participants a different type of
question compared to the previous studies in relation to attributions about intelligence.
With regard to achievement goals, the results of the present study support an emerging
picture that Asian students tend to set both mastery and performance goals for learning (Rao,
Moley, & Sachs, 2000; Saili, Chiu, & Lai, 2001; Shi et al., 2001). Asian students‟ mastery and
performance goals were found to be highly correlated whereas no correlation was found between
mastery and performance goals in the Caucasian group. From a theoretical standpoint, these
results show that it is possible to simultaneously adopt both mastery and performance goals for
learning, which supports the multiple goals perspective proposed by Meece and Holt (1993) and
Pintrich and Garcia (1991).
In addition, these results suggest that the link between beliefs and goals are not very
direct or clear across all populations. For example, in the present study Asian students‟ beliefs
did not predict their goals; that is, although Asian students tended to have entity theories of
intelligence in the present study, they were not more likely to adopt performance-approach goals
in comparison to mastery goals. Thus, although previous research has found that the majority of
individuals with incremental theories of intelligence set mastery goals for learning, and most
individuals with entity theories of intelligence set performance goals for learning (Bandura &
Dweck, 19852; Dweck, Tenney, & Dinces, 1982; Leggett, 1985), the present study shows that
this framework is not necessarily valid across cultures. For example, an emerging body of
studies, including the present study, shows that Asian students tend to set both high mastery and
high performance-approach goals for learning (Rao, Moley, & Sachs, 2000; Saili, Chiu, & Lai,
2001; Shi et al., 2001; Zusho & Njoku, 2007). These results are in conflict with normative
achievement goal theory, which suggests that the three achievement goals are independent (Elliot
& Church, 1997; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997; Vandewalle, 1997).
Additionally, the results of the present study reveal that there are no differences between
Caucasian students and Asian students with regard to how they respond to both negative and
positive feedback. Although both groups did not show any differences in affect following
positive feedback, both groups significantly decreased their endorsement of positive affect items
in response to receiving negative performance feedback. This suggests that although it has been
posited that Asians, in general, tend to have self-improving motivations whereas North American
students tend to have self-enhancing motivations (Heine et al., 2001), both groups are
significantly affected by negative performance feedback. Thus, even though Asian students, for
example may generally strive to improve, this does not necessarily mean that negative feedback
will not affect them as much as Caucasian students who tend to have self-enhancing motivations.
In addition, previous studies have found that in Asian cultures, students are rarely praised
whereas they are criticized for poor performance (Salili & Hau, 1994; Salili, Hwang, & Choi,
1989). Thus, it was hypothesized that Asian students may not be as negatively affected by
negative feedback. The results suggest that despite this, Asian students are in fact negatively
affected by performance feedback and that even if they may be used to receiving negative
feedback more than Caucasian students, it does not mean that it is not as negative an experience
for them. In addition, in the present study participants received feedback from someone who is of
similar age to them (the experimenter). In a culture that tends to be hierarchical, receiving
negative performance feedback from someone older may be seen as acceptable whereas
receiving negative feedback from a same-aged peer may be more threatening (Heine et al.,
2001). An additional factor which may explain the results is that the domain of math was used.
Asians have typically been stereotyped as a group that does particularly well in mathematics and
they may have been particularly affected by receiving negative feedback in a domain they may
have internalized as one in which they should excel.
The results of the present study demonstrate the importance of evaluating cross-cultural
differences in the achievement goal literature. Cross-cultural studies have the potential to
evaluate whether present frameworks of achievement motivation have cultural validity and to
inform general achievement goal theory. In relation to the present study, the results not only
provide insights about Asian students‟ achievement motivation but also about the achievement
motivation of students in general. For example, the results of the present study revealed that
Asian students tend to adopt both mastery and performance goals for learning. Studies with
North American students have also shown that North American students also adopt multiple
goals (Meece & Holt, 1993; Pintrich, 2000; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991).
The present results adds to the growing literature about Asian students and multiple goals
and raises questions about why Asian students may be particularly likely to adopt both high
mastery and high performance-approach goals. Furthermore, although it has been suggested in
the literature that this may be because they value both effort and performance simultaneously
(Zusho & Njoku, 2007), future research in the multiple-goals perspective literature should
address antecedents to the adoption of the four multiple goal structures (high mastery-high
performance, high mastery-low performance, low mastery-high performance, low mastery-low
performance). Future studies should further explore whether individuals who value effort and
high performance adopt high mastery-high performance goals.

Limitations
There are a number of limitations in the present study. First, the present study had a small
Asian sample. Furthermore, in the present study, the term Asian was used as an overarching term
to include students from China, Japan and Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Korea. Although there are
similarities across groups, there are differences between them (Ho, 1991). For example, with
regard to religion, although most Chinese and Japanese individuals tend to be Buddhists, a lot of
Chinese individuals tend to be Christians whereas Daoism is a religion that is more commonly
found in Japan. Thus, although there tends to be a lot of similarities in terms of the two countries
and their religions there are also differences in religious practices. These cultural differences may
influence the way individuals view learning or how they respond to failure. Similarly, both
groups differ in relation to a number of other areas including language and politics (Ho, 1991).
In addition, the Asians who participated in the present study were relatively recent
emigrants (Asians who came to North America within the last three years). Thus, the Asians in
the present study may not be representative of Asian students living in Asia. These individuals
are a select group that chose to come to Canada to pursue their education and there may some
confounding factors that differentiate this group from individuals living in Asia. In particular, it
has been suggested Asian students who emigrate may be more performance oriented (Stevenson
& Stigler, 1992). This is because individuals from Asia who pursue studies internationally tend
to have worked very hard academically to secure positions in North American universities and
they often have families back home who are supporting them financially and emotionally.
Therefore, it has been suggested that these individuals may be particularly focused on
performing very well academically and providing their families with good academic
performance in return for their investment in their education.

A second limitation of the present study is that a number of questionnaires were used and
questionnaire measures have been associated with a number of disadvantages (Gilbert, 1993).
For example, because questionnaires do not allow the researcher to follow-up on participants‟
responses with additional questions, it is possible that students vary in their interpretation of the
goal items. Even if students interpret questionnaire items as intended, they may differ in their
reasons for endorsing particular goals, and these differences are not easily detected using
questionnaires.
References
Alexander, P. A., Murphy, P. K., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1998). What responses to domain
specific analogy problems reveal about emerging competence: A new perspective on an
old acquaintance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 397-406.
Ames, C. (1984). Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: A cognitive-
motivational analysis. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in
education (Vol. 3, pp. 177-207). New York: Academic Press.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1987). Mothers‟ beliefs about the role of ability and effort in school
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 409-414.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students‟ learning strategies
and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.
Asakawa, K., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1998). The quality of experience of Asian American
adolescents in academic activities: An exploration of educational achievement. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 8, 241-262.
Bandura, M., & Dweck, C. S. (1985). The relationship of conceptions of intelligence and
achievement goals to achievement-related cognition, affect and behaviour. In C. S.
Dweck, & E. L. Leggett, (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality, Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation:
Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 706-
722.
Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different
feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 79, 474-482.
Chen, C., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Motivation and mathematics achievement: A comparative
study of Asian-American. Caucasian-American, and East Asian high school students.
Child Development, 66, 1213-1234.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (second ed.). Erlbaum.
Covington, M. V. (1984). Strategic thinking and the fear of failure. In J. Segal, S. Chipman, & R.
Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills: Relating instruction to basic research
(pp.389-416). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Covington, M. V., & Beery, R. (1976). Self-worth and school learning. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1979). Effort: The double-edged sword in school
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 169-182.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,
1040-1048.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-Theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.
Philadelphia: The Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Elliot, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E.
M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. IV. Social and
personality development (pp. 643-691). New York: Wiley.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Dweck, C. S., Tenney, Y., & Dinces, N. (1982). Implicit theories of intelligence as determinants
of achievement goal choice. Unpublished manuscript, Cambridge, MA.
Eaton, M. J., & Dembo, M. H. (1997). Differences in the motivational beliefs of Asian American
and Non-Asian students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 433-440.
Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating “classic” and “contemporary” approaches to achievement
motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In
P. Pintrich & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp.
143-179). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.
Elliot, A. J., & Dweck, C. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and
intrinsic motivation: A meditational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2x2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.

Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and
exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549-
563.
Flansburg, S., & Hays, V. (1994). Math magic. New York: HarperCollins.
Fryer, J.W. & Elliott, A.J. (2007). Stability and change in achievement goals, Journal of
Gilbert, N. (1993). Researching Social Life. London: Sage.
Graham, S., & Hudley, C. (Eds.). (2005). Race and ethnicity in the study of motivation and
competence. New York: Guilford.
Hamamura, T., & Heine, S.J. (2008). Approach and avoidance motivation across cultures. In A.
J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 557-570).
NewYork, NY: Psychology Press.
Harackiewicz, J., Barron, K., & Elliot, A. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When are they
adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist, 33, 1-21.
Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron, K.E., Pintrich, P.R., Elliot, A.J., & Thrash, T.M. (2002). Revision of
achievement goal theory: necessary and illuminating, Journal of Educational
Heine, S. J. (2005). Constructing good selves in Japan and North America. In R. M. Sorrentino,
D. Cohen, J. M. Olson, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), Culture and social behavior: The tenth
Ontario Symposium (pp. 115-143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Heine, S.J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D.R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C., et al. (2001). Divergent
consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America : An investigation of
self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social
Hess, R. D., Chang, C., & McDevitt, T. M. (1982). Cultural variations in family beliefs about
children‟s performance in mathematics: Comparisons among People‟s Republic of China,
Chinese-American, and Caucasian-American families. Journal of Educational
Ho, D. Y. F. (1991). Traditional patterns of socialization in Chinese society. Acta Psychologica
Taiwanica, 23, 81-95.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holloway, S. D. (1988). Concepts of ability and effort in Japan and the United States. Review of
Educational Research, 58, 327-345.
Hong, Y., Chiu, C., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). Implicit theories and self-confidence in
achievement. In M. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency and self-esteem (pp. 197-216). New
York: Plenum.
Jagacinski, C. M., & Nicholls, J. G. (1987). Competence and affect in task involvement and ego
involvement: The impact of social comparison information. Journal of Educational
Johnson, W. D., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Multicultural education and human relations: Valuing
diversity. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kitayama, S., Mesquita, B., & Karasawa, M. (2006). Cultural affordances and emotional
experience: Socially engaging and disengaging emotions in Japan and the United States.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 890-903.
Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling: 2nd. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Kwan, V.S. Y., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural explanation for life
satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73, 1038-1051.
Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-
construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78, 1122-1134.
Leggett, E. L. (1985, March). Children's entity and incremental theories of intelligence:
Relationships to achievement behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Eastern Psychological Association, Boston.
Lin, Y. N. (1988). Family socioeconomic background, parental involvement and students‟
academic performance by elementary school children. Journal of Counseling (National
Taiwan Institute of Education), 11, 95-141.
Lockwood, P., Marshall, T.C., & Sadler, P. (2005). Promoting success or preventing failure:
Cultural differences in motivation by positive and negative role models. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 379-392.
Maehr, M. (1989). Thoughts about motivation. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on
motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (Vol. 3, pp. 299-315). New York:
Academic.
Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A school-wide approach.
Educational Psychologist, 26, 399-427.
Meece, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Hoyle, R. (1988). Students‟ goal orientations and cognitive
engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523.
Meece, J. L., & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students‟ achievement goals. Journal of
Middleton, M., & Midley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An
underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89,710-718.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M.L., Urdan, T., Hicks Anderman, L.,
Anderman, E., & Roeser, R. (1998). The development and validation of scales assessing
students achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, p.
113-131.
Morrone, A.S., & Pintrich, P.R. (2006). Achievement Motivation. In Bear, G.G., & Minke, K.M.
(Ed.), Children’s Needs 111: Development, Prevention and Intervention (pp.431-442).
Bethesda, MD: NASP Publications.
Muis, K. R., & Edwards, O. (2009). Examining the stability of achievement goal orientation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 265-277.
Murphy, K. P., & Alexander, P. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology.
Nicholls, J. G. (1976). Effort is virtuous, but it is better to have ability: Evaluative responses to
perceptions of effort and ability. Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 306-315.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience,
task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Nicholls, J.G. (1990). What is ability and why are we mindful of it? A developmental
perspective. In R. Sterberg & J. Kolligan (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 11-40).
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies.
Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269-287.
Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2001). Goals, culture, and subjective well-being. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1674-1682.
Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2003). Culture and well-being: The cycle of action, evaluation, and
decision. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 939-949.
Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Continuities and discontinuities: Future directions for research in
educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 29, 137-148.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning
and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555.
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college
classroom. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.) Advances in motivation and achievement
(Vol. 7, pp. 371-402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivaiton in education: Theory, research and
applications (2nd ed.). Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Rao, N., Moley, B. E., & Sachs, J. (2000). Motivational beliefs, study strategies, and
mathematics attainment in high-and low-achieving Chinese secondary school students.

Reglin, G. L. & Dale, R. A. (1990). Why Asian-American High School Students Have
Higher Grade Point Averages and SAT Scores Than Other High School Students. The
High School Journal, 143-149.
Salili, F., Chiu, C. Y., & Lai, S. (2001). The influence of culture and context on students‟
motivational orientation and performance. In F. Salili, C. Y. Chiu, & Y.Y. Hong (Eds.),
Student motivation: The culture and context of learning (pp. 221-247). New York:
Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers.
Salili, F. & Hau, K. T. (1994). The effects of teachers' evaluative feedback on Chinese students'
perception of ability: A cultural and situational analysis. Educational Studies, 20, 223-
236.
Salili, F., Hwang, C. E. & Choi, N. F. (1989). Teachers‟ evaluative behaviour: A cross-cultural
study of the relationship between teachers‟ comments and perceived ability. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 115-132.
Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2005). Regulation of Achievement Goals: The Role of
Competence Feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 320-336.
Shi, K., Wang, P., Wang, W., Zuo, Y., Liu, d., Maehe, M. L., et al. (2001). Goals and motivation
of Chinese students-Testing the adaptive learning model. In F. Salili, C. Y. Chiu & Y.Y.
Hong (Eds.), Student motivation: The culture and context of learning (pp. 249-270). New
York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task
and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of

Stevenson, H.W., & Lee, S., Chen, C., & Stigler, J., Hsu C. C. & Kitamura, S. (1990). Contexts
of achievement: A study of American, Chinese, and Japanese children. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development (Vol. 55, no. 1-2). Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our school are failing and
what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit Books.
Stigler, J. W., Lee, S., & Stevenson, H. W. (1987). Mathematics classrooms in Japan, Taiwan,
and the United States. Child Development, 58, 1272-1285.
Stigler, J.M., Smith, S., & Mao, L.W. (1985). The self-perception of competence by Chinese
children. Child Development, 56, 1259-1270.
Stipek, D., & Gralinski, J. H. (1996). Children‟s beliefs about intelligence and school
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 397-407.
Stipek, D. J., & Kowalski, P. S. (1989). Learned helplessness in task-orienting versus
performance-orienting test conditions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 384-391.
Turner, J., Thorpe, P., & Meyer, D. (1998). Students‟ reports of motivation and negative affect:
A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 758-771.
Urdan, T. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In M. Maehr & P.
Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 243-29).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Vandewalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation
instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995-1015.

Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories and research. Newbury Park, CA.:
Sage
Wolters, C., Yu, S., & Pintrich, P. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students‟
motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8,
211-238.
Zusho, A., & Njoku, H. (2007). Culture and motivation to learn: Exploring the generalizability of
achievement goal theory. Manuscript to be published in F. Salili & R. Hoosain (Eds.)
Culture, motivation, and learning: A multicultural perspective. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Press.

Table 1
Beliefs, Goals and Affect for all Students at Time 1 and following Feedback
Dependent Initial Control Positive Negative T1 Alpha T2 Alpha
Variables Feedback Feedback
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Incremental 3.53 (1.19) 3.46 (1.22) 3.66 (1.25) 3.47 (1.11) .88 .87
beliefs
Entity beliefs 3.56 (1.11) 3.69 (1.20) 3.58 (1.14) 3.42 (1.00) .89 .90
Mastery goals 3.43 (1.04) 3.14 (1.14) 3.62 (.957) 3.53 (.98) .90 .92
Performance- 2.53 (.98) 2.41 (.88) 2.55 (1.10) 2.64 (.98) .91 .96
approach goals
Performance- 2.69 (.98) 2.60 (.94) 2.60 (1.06) 2.86 (.95) .83 .88
avoidance goals
Positive affect 2.68 (.72) 2.73 (.67) 2.58 (.68) 2.72 (.81) .88 .90
Negative affect 1.50 (.49) 1.57 (.50) 1.57 (.61) 1.37 (.31) .85 .88
Table 2
Beliefs, Goals and Affect for all Students at Time 1 and following Feedback
Dependent Initial Control Positive Negative
Variables Feedback Feedback
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Caucasian Incremental beliefs 3.67 (1.13) 3.56 (1.01) 3.83 (1.24) 3.65 (1.18)
Entity beliefs 3.63 (1.13) 3.72 (1.01) 3.52 (1.25) 3.56 (1.16)
Mastery goals 3.14 (1.05) 2.59 (1.12) 3.24 (.99) 2.96 (1.01)
Performance- 2.45 (.95) 2.55 (.82) 2.08 (.93) 2.58 (1.09)
approach goals
Performance- 2.70 (1.01) 2.72 (1.01) 2.38 (.86) 2.74 (1.09)
avoidance goals
Positive affect 2.56 (.73) 2.44 (.65) 2.56 (.66) 2.35 (.85)
Negative affect 1.47 (.39 ) 1.61 (.40) 1.40 (.45) 1.48 (.22)
Asian Incremental beliefs 3.31 (1.25) 3.36 (1.47) 3.62 (1.30) 3.28 (1.03)
Entity beliefs 3.46 (1.10) 3.67 (1.51) 3.38 (.99) 3.33 (.73)
Mastery goals 3.90 (.82) 4.02 (.89) 4.00 (.67) 3.62 (.92)
Performance- 2.66 (1.03) 2.33 (1.00) 3.03 (1.16) 2.60 (.82)
approach goals
Performance- 2.70 (.96) 2.48 (.81) 3.00 (1.24) 2.81 (.69)
avoidance goals
Positive affect 2.85 (.68) 3.28 (.63) 3.08 (.62) 2.55 (.79)
Negative affect 1.56 (.62) 1.43 (.64) 1.70 (.80) 1.60 (.39)
Table 3
Correlation between Goals at T1 for Caucasian group
Mastery Performance- Performance-
approach avoidance
Mastery 1.00 .22 .15
Performance-approach 1.00 .85**
Performance-avoidance 1.00
** Correlation is significant at p < .01 level.
Table 4
Correlation between Goals at T1 for Asian group
approach avoidance
Mastery 1.00 .45** .40**
Performance-approach 1.00 .81**
Performance-avoidance 1.00

Table 5
Correlation between Beliefs and Goals at T1 for Caucasian group
approach avoidance
Incremental .21 -.19 -.19
Entity -.26 .06 .03
Table 6
Correlation between Beliefs and Goals at T1 for Asian group
approach avoidance
Incremental .07 -.23 -.17
Entity -.07 .11 .02

APPENDIX A: CONSENT FORM
STUDENT INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology
TITLE OF STUDY: Revisiting the link between Achievement Goal Theory and Antecedent
Beliefs
INVESTIGATORS: Lavanya Sampasivam and Dr. Krista Muis
CONTACT PHONE NUMBER: 514-398-7419
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research is to study students‟ learning styles.
Procedures
If you would like to participate, we will ask you for some basic information about yourself (your age,
gender, year in university, etc), and then ask you to complete some questionnaires about your interest,
level of anxiety, beliefs and goals about mathematics learning. Then, you will be asked to complete a
math task wherein your performance will be compared to other students. Following the math task, you
will fill out additional questionnaires to measure your affect, beliefs and goals. Then, you will complete
another math task in which you will learn and use a novel method of solving mathematics problems. Your
performance on this math task will also be compared to that of other students. After the completion of this
mathmathematics task, you will complete one last set of questionnaires about you beliefs, goals and
affect. This study will take no longer than an hour of your time, for which you will be compensated $10.
Benefits of Participation
Benefits include an opportunity for you to reflect upon your achievement goals and learning strategies.
Having the opportunity to assess your goals and strategies may help you identify strategies and practices
which may facilitate learning.
Risks of Participation
There are risks involved in all research studies. This study may include only minimal risks. A possible
risk is anxiety normally associated with filling out questionnaires. An additional risk is your performance
on the task being evaluated and compared to other students which may be anxiety provoking to you.
Cost /Compensation
The study will take approximately one hour of your time. For your participation, you will receive $10.
Contact Information
If you have any questions or concerns about the study, you may contact Lavanya Sampasivam at 398-
7419. For questions regarding the rights of research subjects, any complaints or comments regarding the
manner in which the study is being conducted you may contact the McGill REB Office at 514-398-6831.
Voluntary Participation
Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may refuse to participate in this study or in any part of
this study. You may withdraw at any time without prejudice to your relations with the university. You
are encouraged to ask questions about this study at the beginning or any time during the research study.
Confidentiality
All information gathered in this study will be kept completely confidential. No reference will be made in
written or oral materials that could link you to this study. All records will be stored in a locked facility at
McGill for at least 3 years after completion of the study. After the storage time, the information gathered
will be destroyed.
Participant Consent:
I have read the above information and agree to participate in this study. I am at least 18 years of age.
Signature of Participant Date
Participant name (Please Print).

APPENDIX B: DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE
________________________ Age (in years)

________________________ Gender (F or M)
________________________ Ethnicity
________________________ Where were you born?
________________________ How long have you been living in North America?
________________________ Grade Point Average in all your secondary studies (e.g., high school
GPA, 0-4)
________________________ Grade Point Average in all your post-secondary studies (0-4)
________________________ Academic major (e.g., mathematics, statistics, etc., if applicable)
________________________ Academic minor (e.g., mathematics, computer sciences, etc., if
applicable)
________________________ Year of study (e.g., 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th year of study)
In order, beginning with elementary school to the present time, please indicate which countries you
attended school in and for how many years each. (ex: elementary school, Australia, 5 years…)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX C: IMPLICIT THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE SCALE (ITIS)
Please circle the number that best describes what you think.
If you strongly agree with a statement, circle 1.

If you strongly disagree with a statement, circle 6.
If you agree or disagree more or less with a statement, circle the number between 2 and 6 that best
describes your thinking.
1. In math, you have a certain amount of intelligence, and you really can‟t do much to change it.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly Agree Agree Mostly Agree Mostly Disagree Strongly
Disagree Disagree
2. In math, your intelligence is something about you that you can‟t change very much.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Disagree Disagree
3. In math, you can learn new things, but you can‟t really change your basic intelligence.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Disagree Disagree
4. In math, no matter who you are, you can change your intelligence a lot.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Disagree Disagree
5. In math, you can always greatly change how intelligent you are.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Disagree Disagree
6. In math, no matter how much intelligence you have, you can always change it quite a bit.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Disagree Disagree
APPENDIX D: PATTERNS OF ADAPTIVE LEARNING SCALE (PALS)
Please circle the number that best describes what you think.
If a statement is very true of you, circle 5.

If a statement is not at all true of you, circle 1.
If a statement is more or less true of you, circle the number between 2 and 4 that best describes you.
Think about the content area math while you complete the following questionnaire. If you are not
currently in a math class, think about a previous math class you took or about what your goals would be if
you were currently taking a math class.
1. In math, it‟s important to me that I don‟t look stupid.
1 2 3 4 5
Not at all true Somewhat true Very true
2. In math, it‟s important to me that other students in my class think I am good at my class work.
1 2 3 4 5
3. In math, it‟s important to me that I learn a lot of new concepts this year.
1 2 3 4 5
4. In math, one of my goals is to show others that I‟m good at class work.
1 2 3 4 5
5. In math, one of my goals is to learn as much as I can.
1 2 3 4 5
6. In math, one of my goals is to keep others from thinking I‟m not smart in class.
1 2 3 4 5
7. In math, one of my goals is to master a lot of new skills this year.
1 2 3 4 5
8. In math, one of my goals is to show others that class work is easy for me.
1 2 3 4 5
9. In math, it‟s important to me that I thoroughly understand my class work.
1 2 3 4 5
10. In math, one of my goals is to look smart in comparison to the other students in my classes.
1 2 3 4 5
11. In math, one of my goals in class is to avoid looking like I have trouble doing the work.
1 2 3 4 5
12. In math, it‟s important to me that I look smart compared to others in my classes.
1 2 3 4 5
13. In math, it‟s important to me that my teacher doesn‟t think that I know less than others in class.
1 2 3 4 5
14. In math, it‟s important to me that I improve my skills this year.
1 2 3 4 5
APPENDIX E: POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT SCHEDULE (PANAS)
Directions:
This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item
and then circle the appropriate answer next to that word. Indicate to what extent you feel at this
moment.
Use the following scale to record your answers.
(1) = Very slightly (2) = A little (3) = Moderately (4) = Quite a bit (5) = Extremely
or not at all
Very slightly
or not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely
1. Interested 1 2 3 4 5
2. Distressed 1 2 3 4 5
3. Excited 1 2 3 4 5
4. Upset 1 2 3 4 5
5. Strong 1 2 3 4 5
6. Guilty 1 2 3 4 5
7. Scared 1 2 3 4 5
8. Hostile 1 2 3 4 5
9. Enthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5
10. Proud 1 2 3 4 5
11. Irritable 1 2 3 4 5
12. Alert 1 2 3 4 5
13. Ashamed 1 2 3 4 5
14. Inspired 1 2 3 4 5
15. Nervous 1 2 3 4 5
16. Determined 1 2 3 4 5
17. Attentive 1 2 3 4 5
18. Jittery 1 2 3 4 5
19. Active 1 2 3 4 5
20. Afraid 1 2 3 4 5
APPENDIX F: MATH TASK
Task 1
1) 29
X 63
2) 846
X 233
3) 44
X 96
4) 447
X 230
5) 98
X 99
6) 987
X 436
7) 994
X 630
8) 42
X 84
9) 67
X 42
10) 84
X 33
11) 437
X 998
12) 948
X 323
13) 224
X 804
14) 847
X 937
15) 33
X 47
16) 83
X 47
17) 846
X 332
18) 62
X 94
19) 86
X 42
20) 824
X 824
21) 96
X 49
22) 312
X 119
23) 213
X 947
24) 84
X 23

© Lavanya Sampasivam 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

© Lavanya Sampasivam 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: BELIEFS, GOALS AND AFFECT

Implicit Beliefs, Achievement Goals, and Affect: A Cross-Cultural Comparison

Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology

McGill University, Montreal

Master of Arts in Educational Psychology (School/Applied Child Psychology Stream)

© Lavanya Sampasivam 2009

multiplication problems, participants were randomly assigned to a negative, positive, or no

modèle d‟intelligence incrémentale et d‟entité se fixent respectivement des buts de maîtrisent et

de performance pour apprendre, il y a un manque d‟étude testant la validité de ces structures

complété des mesures de leurs convictions à propos de l‟intelligence, de leurs buts

grateful to my husband and my family who have shown me tremendous encouragement,

parents, Nirmaladevi Sampasivam and Sampasivam Subramaniam, for always encouraging me

Chapter 2 Literature Review……………………………………………………………………8

Incremental versus Entity Theories of Intelligence……………………………………….8

Achievement Goal Theory………………………………………………………………...8

The Trichotomous Achievement Goal Framework……………………………………..11

A 2x2 achievement goal conceptualization……………………………………………...12

Multiple Goals Framework……………………………………………………………....13

Asian Theories of Intelligence…………………………………………………………...16

Asians and Achievement Goals…………………………………………….……………17

Feedback, Goals and Affect……………………………………………………………...20

Performance Feedback and Affect……………………………………………………….32

Appendix A: Consent Form……………………………………………………………...56

Appendix B: Demographics Questionnaire……………………………………………...58

Appendix C: Implicit Theories of Intelligence Scale……………………………………59

Appendix D: Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scale………………………………………60

Appendix E: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule……………………………………62

Appendix F: Math Task………………………………………………………………….63

for learning and affect following different types of feedback, respectively.

Incremental versus Entity Theories of Intelligence

with incremental beliefs understand that making mistakes is a part of learning.

believe that they must not be very smart.

Achievement Goal Theory

performance goals (Ames & Archer, 1987).

improving their level of competence, or achieving a sense of mastery based on self-referenced

Covington, 1984). Especially important to individuals with performance goals is public

self-handicapping behaviour (Midgley & Urdan, 2001).

have no discernable influence or even facilitate some adaptive achievement behaviour

and interest outcomes, such as interest in class and enjoyment of lectures.

theories of intelligence. In particular, individuals with incremental theories typically hold

performance goal and entity belief-mastery goal frameworks, respectively.

The Trichotomous Achievement Goal Framework

A number of researchers have proposed a revised trichotomous achievement goal

a performance-approach goal, focused on outperforming others and displaying one‟s

competence; and a performance-avoidance goal, focused on not looking incompetent compared

performing. In contrast, individual with both performance-approach and performance-avoidance

1999). The performance-avoidance goal is construed as an avoidance orientation, because it

involves striving to avoid negative possibilities.

to differential patterns of antecedents and consequences (Elliot, 1999). In general, performance-

of processes and outcomes (Elliot, 1999).

In particular, the adoption of performance-approach goals has been linked to the

consequences: test anxiety during evaluation, shallow processing of information, and an

disorganized studying, an unwillingness to seek help with schoolwork, shallow processing of

A 2 x 2 Achievement Goal Conceptualization

The three types of achievement goals; that is, performance-approach, performance-

learned, misunderstanding material or leaving a task incomplete or unmastered. Mastery

Multiple Goals Framework

in facilitating or constraining student motivation, cognition, and learning.

student achievement and well-being following success or failure.

as a Canadian student who faces the same situation.

Asians belong to diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds marked by a variety of

to cooperation and interdependence (Hofstede, 1980). Hence, in collectivistic cultures, the

Smith, & Mao, 1985).

A significant interaction was also found between timeconditionPANAS, F(2,90) =