A Critical Appraisal of Gardner’s

Social-Psychological Theory of
Second-Language (L2) Learning*
Shun Y. Au**
City University (London)

The social-psychological theory of second-language (L2) learning pro-

posed by R. C. Gardner (Gardner & Lambert, 1959; Gardner, 1979;
Gardner, 1982; Gardner, 1983) has been one of the most long-standing
theories of L2 learning. For the past 25 years, it has generated a substantial
number of studies in various parts of the world. Interestingly enough, a
comprehensive and detailed evaluation of the theory has not been forth-
coming’. This paper attempts to do just that. It begins with an overview of
Gardner’s theory. The theory is then analyzed into five major propositions,
each of which will be evaluated in the light of relevant studies. Recent
developments will then be discussed.

GARDNER’S THEORY
SOCIALPSYCHOLOGICAL
OF L2 LEARNING: AN OVERVIEW

Gardner has proposed several versions of his theoretical model

(Gardner, 1979, 1981, 1983). Because they do not differ in the central
aspects of the model, we shall look only at the 1983 version of this model
(Gardner, 1983). In order to give a faithful presentation of the model, a
great deal of what follows will be quotations from Gardner himself.
The rationale behind the model is the belief that the acquisition of an
L2 is a social-psychological rather than an educational phenomenon.
Gardner writes: “The learning of a second (or foreign) language in the
school situation is often viewed as an educational phenomenon . . . such
a perception is categorically wrong . . .” (1979, p. 193). He further
asserts, “In the acquisition of a second language, the student is faced
*This research is part of an M. Phil. thesis submitted to the City University. I am indebted
to my supervisors, Dr. James Hampton and Mr. Vivian Cook of Essex University. I thank
Dr. James Hampton for his comments of an earlier draft of the manuscript.
**The author is currently at Cambridge University. Reprint requestsshould be sent to Shun
Y. Au, Clare Hall College, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

75
76 Language Learning Vol. 38, No. I

SOCIAL INDIVIDUAL LANGUAGE OUTCOMES

MILIEU DIFFERENCES ACQUISITION
CONTEXTS

LINGUISTIC

LEARNING
SITUATION
NONLlNGUlSTlC

Figure I . The social psychological model of LL2 learning proposed by

Gardner (1983)

with the task of not simply learning new information (vocabulary, gram-
mar, pronunciation, etc.) which is part of his own culture but rather of
acquiring symbolic elements of a different ethnolinguistic community.”
(1979, p. 193). If indeed it is accepted that L2 learning is primarily a
social-psychological phenomenon, it is only natural that social-
psychological variables should be given paramount attention. With this
in mind, Gardner and his associates have been continuously working
with a set of social-psychological variables over the past 25 years. These
variables have now been incorporated into a theoretical model, the sche-
matic form of which is presented in Figure 1. As can be seen from Figure
1, the model has four major sections. They are:

1. social milieu,
2. individual differences
3. language acquisition contexts, and
4. outcomes

Gardner (1983) elaborates

It [the model] proposes that second language acquisition should be con-

sidered within the social milieu in which it takes place and hwothesises
 Au 77

that the cultural beliefs within this milieu could influence the development
of two sets of attitudinal variables relevant to language acquisition. These
two attitude variables are Integrativeness (which refers to positive affect
towards the other language community, or communities in general) and
Attitudes toward the Learning Situation (evaluative reactions to the learn-
ing situation). It is hypothesised that these two attitudes influence motiva-
tion, and the composite of all three classes of variables is referred to as an
integrative motive. Motivation in this context, it should be emphasised, is
conceived as comprising three components, effort to achieve the goal,
desire to achieve the goal and positive affect toward the goal. Such a tri-
partite conceptualisation seems necessary to reflect adequately the notion
of the motivated individual.
The model proposes further that two individual difference variables,
motivation and language aptitude, interact with second language acquisi-
tion contexts to promote second language proficiency. Both aptitude and
motivation are expected to play a role in formal language acquisition
contexts, like the school classroom, because the student with more ability
and a higher level of motivation would be expected to work harder and
profit more than the student with lower levels. Motivation is expected to
play a more dominant role than aptitude in informal contexts, such as
watching movies in the other language, because it is assumed that motiva-
tional levels will determine whether or not students avail themselves of
such informal opportunities to learn the language. Once the student enters
an informal language acquisition context, language aptitude would become
influential, but motivational factors dominate because they determine
whether or not students even take advantage of these contexts. Finally, the
model shows that both contexts give rise to both linguistic and non-
linguistic outcomes. Linguistic outcomes refer simply to language knowl-
edge and language skills, whereas non-linguistic outcomes refer to interest
in learning more of the language, desire to use it, etc. (pp. 222-223)

This elaboration spells out the essential ingredients o f the model.

Gardner’s theoretical model can be analyzed into five major proposi-
tions. They are:

1. T h e integrative motive hypothesis -integrative motive is posi-

tively related t o L2 achievement
2. T h e cultural belief hypothesis - cultural beliefs within a particu-
lar milieu could influence the development of the integrative
motive and t h e extent to which the integrative motive relates to
L2 achievement.
3. T h e active learner hypothesis - integratively motivated L2 learn-
ers achieve high L2 proficiency because they a r e active learners.
78 Language Learning Vol. 38, No. 1

4. The causality hypothesis-integrative motive causally affects L2

achievement.
5 . The two-process hypothesis -linguistic aptitude and integrative
motive constitute two independent factors affecting L2
achievement.

All five propositions have been explicitly stated by Gardner and his associ-
ates and directly or indirectly tested by them or by other researchers.
Before we discuss these propositions, however, it seems necessary to look
at the operational measures used to elicit one major construct: the integra-
tive motive.

OPERATIONAL MEASURES USED TO ELICIT

THE INTEGRATIVE MOTIVE

To place studies relating the integrative motive to L2 achievement in a

proper perspective, we shall take a brief look at its operational measures.
The operational measures used to elicit integrative motive employ two
types of method; the direct method and the indirect method.

THE DIRECT METHOD

Direct method refers to direct questions or scales, the aims of which

are apparent from their wording or their accompanying instructions. The
most frequently used direct questions are those of the Attitude and Moti-
vation Test Battery (AMTB), (Gardner, Clement, Smythe & Smythe,
1979). As operationalized in the AMTB, the integrative motive consists
of nine scales. They are:

1. attitudes toward French Canadians,

2. interest in foreign languages,
3. integrative orientation,
4. attitudes toward European French,
5 . attitudes toward learning French,
6. motivational intensity,
7. desire to learn French,
8. my French teacher-evaluative, and
9. my French course-evaluative.
 Au 79

The first four scales form the integrativeness component, the next three
the motivation component, the eighth and the ninth the attitudes toward
the learning situation component of the model. It should be noted that
this taxonomy for combining scales into components is not of an empiri-
cal nature in that Gardner and his associates have not employed a factor
analytic (or other) statistical technique to justify this taxonomy. Gardner
himself freely admits this classification system is a logical rather than an
empirical one (Gardner, 1980). Scores of all the scales are added together
to arrive at a single score of the integrative motive. It is not at all clear on
which grounds such a linear combination is justified. If it is proposed
that the nine scales constitute three separate components, and yet scores
of the three components can be additionally combined to arrive at one
single score, one can only conclude that either the subdividing of the nine
scales into three separate components is no more than an empty rhetoric
or the basis for adding the nine scales is an insecure one.
The scales have been administered to 5,000 English Canadian pupils,
grades 7 to 1 1, in seven regions of Canada yielding reasonably high inter-
nal consistency estimates and moderate test-retest reliability estimates.
It should be noted that the nine scales have seldom been employed in
their entirety in one study. A typical study by Gardner and his colleagues
would use some scales from the AMTB, some other variables thought to
be important for the particular sample under study, and some measures
of L2 achievement. Moreover, researchers other than Gardner and his
colleagues have sometimes adapted scales from the AMTB for use in
their own studies (Muchnich & Wolfe, 1982; Wong, 1982), and at other
times have devised entirely new scales (Spolsky, 1969; Lyczak, Fu, & Ho,
1976; Oller, Baca, 8z Vigil, 1977; Oller, Hudson, & Liu, 1977). Because
estimates of reliability and validity were seldom given in these studies,
when disconfirming evidence was found, it is difficult to judge to what
extent it was a result of inappropriate measures, and to what extent it
reflected the falsehood of the theory.

THE INDIRECT METHOD

A method is indirect so long as its true aim is not apparent to the

subjects. The two main indirect methods used are the Spolsky identity
scales and the matched-guise technique.
80 Language Learning VoI. 38, No. I

The Spokky Identity Scales

The scales consist of about 30 adjectives. Subjects are asked how well
these adjectives describe (1) themselves, (2) their ideal selves, (3) people
whose native language is the same as theirs, and (4) native speakers of the
L2 in question. Various analyses can be applied to the scores obtained.
The most relevant procedure as far as tapping integrative motive is con-
cerned seems to be subtracting the correlation between lists (2) and (3)
from that between lists (2) and (4). A positive remainder could be viewed
as indicating a greater desire to be like speakers of the L2 than to be like
speakers of one’s native language-a global measure of integrative
motive as far as Gardner’s definition of integrative motive is concerned.
In terms of individual subject differences, a positive correlation between
the remainder and L2 achievement would indicate a positive relationship
between integrative motive and L2 proficiency, while a negative correla-
tion would indicate a negative relationship. A positive correlation was
found by Spolsky. It should be noted, however, that only Spolsky (1969)
himself employed such a procedure to investigate the relationship
between integrative motive and L2 achievement. Other researchers
employing the Spolsky identity scales simply factor analyzed the four
scales separately and used the factors to predict L2 achievement mea-
sures in a multiple regression analyses. Although these studies might
yield valuable insights into the role of attitudes concerning linguistic
communities on L2 achievement, it is not clear to what extent they bear
directly on the specific question of the relationship between integrative
motive and L2 achievement.

The Matched- Guise Technique

This technique requires bilinguals to read onto a tape passages both in
their native language and in their L2. Subjects, upon listening to these
passages, are asked to rate speakers on a number of personality traits
without knowing that the speakers have in fact been the same speakers in
two guises. A differential score for each subject is obtained by subtract-
ing the subject’s average ratings of the L2 guises from those of the native
guises. According to the favorability ratings given to the traits, the dif-
ferential score would indicate how favorably a subject viewed the L2
community (relative to his native group). Correlating the differential
scores with scores of an L2 achievement measure reflects the relationship
between attitude toward L2 community and L2 achievement. Again, as
 Au 81

with the Spolsky identity scales, this method is a more global measure of
attitude toward linguistic communities, and therefore provides no test of
Gardner’s specific proposals for defining integrative motive. The extent
to which it adequately reflects the integrative motive is therefore
unclear.
With this knowledge of the various operational measures most fre-
quently employed in mind, we move on to evaluate the five major propo-
sitions of Gardner’s theory.

PROPOSITION 1: THE INTEGRATIVE MOTIVE

HYPOTHESIS

Proposition 1 maintains that an integrative motive is positively related

to L2 achievement. Table A-1 (see Appendix) presents a list of studies
that directly or indirectly bear on this proposition. The studies are
divided into two sections. Section 1 contains studies that were conducted
by Gardner and his colleagues. Section 2 contains studies that were con-
ducted by other researchers. The rationale for such a division is that the
operational measures employed by Gardner and his associates are differ-
ent from those employed by the other researchers. Gardner and his asso-
ciates have tended to employ scales from the A ttitude/Motivation Test
Battery (AMTB) (Gardner, ClCment, Smythe, & Smythe, 1979) while
other researchers have used a variety of techniques such as scales adapted
from the AMTB, the matched-guise technique, and the Spolsky type
identity scales to elicit integrative motive or components of integrative
motive. The two sections will be discussed in turn.

EVALUATION OF STUDIES IN SECTION 1

These studies (the majority of them employing Canadians as subjects),

a cross-sectional methodology, and the factor analysis technique to ana-
lyze results yielded mixed result;. Sometimes, positive relationships were
found between components of the integrative motive and L2 achieve-
ment measures (Gardner & Lambert, 1959; Gardner, 1960; the Philip-
pines study -Gardner & Lambert, 1972;Smythe, Stennett, & Freenstra,
1972). At other times no relationship was observed (Gardner, Smythe, 8z
Clement, 1979;Clement, Gardner, & Smythe, 1980) while other studies
yielded a negative relationship between some components of the integra-
tive motive and L2 achievement (Lambert, Gardner, Barik, & Tunstall,
82 Language Learning Vol. 38, No. I

1963; Gardner & Lambert, 1972, the Connecticut study- Americans

learning French, the Maine study -Americans learning French; Gardner,
Smythe, & ClCment, 1979). In view of the number of studies where zero
or negative relationships were observed (of the fourteen studies cited,
seven found a nil relationship, and four found a negative relationship
between at least some integrative motive measures and L2 achievement
either in the entire sample or in some groups of the sample), one feels
justified in questioning the generality of the hypothesis. Whereas the nil
relationships may be explained post hoc in terms of the contextual con-
siderations often invoked in this kind of circumstance, the negative rela-
tionships seem to have inflicted long-lasting damage on the hypothesis.
Even armed with contextual considerations, the model does not seem
able to handle findings of this kind. How could a less integratively moti-
vated L2 learner emerge as a better learner in some contexts? What are
these contexts that happen to facilitate the L2 achievement of the less
integratively motivated learners? How can some contexts reverse the
effect of integrative motivation? Gardner and his associates do not seem
to have answers to these questions. In fact as they have paid little atten-
tion to these findings, for them these questions simply do not arise. For
example, in Lambert et al. (1963) and Gardner, Smythe, & ClCment
(1979), negative findings were apparent in the correlation and factor
matrices. They were not, however, mentioned anywhere in the reports.
Another conclusion to be drawn from a close examination of these
studies is that there is little evidence that integrative motive is a unitary
concept in that the components of the integrative motive often do not
relate to each other in the direction the AMTB (Gardner, Clement,
Smythe, & Smythe, 1979) would predict. That is to say, variables of one
component of the integrative motive are quite often found not to load
with variables of another component (Gardner & Lambert, 1972, the
Louisiana study -Americans learning French, the Maine study -
Americans learning French, the Connecticut study -Americans learning
French). Moreover, L2 achievement was often found to relate to some
measures of the integrative motive yet not all to other measures of the
integrative motive (in all the studies quoted under Gardner & Lambert,
1972; ClCment, Gardner, & Smythe, 1980, for example). That the inte-
grative motive is not a unitary concept is quite a worrisome conclusion,
because once the notion of unitary concept is challenged, we are left with
no guide as to which variables should be included under the rubric of
integrative motive. The precision of the hypothesis is thereby weakened.
 Au 83

When some components of the integrative motive are found to relate to

L2 achievement while some other components are found either not to
relate to L2 achievement or to be negatively related to L2 proficiency
measures, is the hypothesis supported or disconfirmed? It is puzzling
that Gardner and his associates have not addressed this issue in their
writings.

EVALUATION OF STUDIES IN SECTION 2

These studies employed a variety of techniques. Some used scales

adapted from the AMTB, others specifically devised scales for their
particular study, still others employed indirect methods such as the
Spolsky scales and the matched-guise technique to elicit a subject’s level
of integrative motive or hidher attitude toward the target language com-
munity. One criticism of these studies is that the relationship between
some of the direct questions and the integrative motive was not apparent.
For example, what exactly does had long planned to come to the U.S.
(Oller, Hudson, & Liu, 1977) indicate? An integrative motive? A dislike
of one’s own country? A person who liked to plan ahead? It is therefore
not clear how far (if at all) some of the direct questions used in these
studies reflect the integrative motive. The indirect methods - Spolsky’s
identity scales and the matched-guise technique -are ingenious methods
of eliciting subjects’ attitudes toward the target language community,
although they seem to have an inherent limitation in being unable to
measure some aspects of the integrative motive as it is operationally
defined by the AMTB (motivational intensity, desire to learn French,
evaluation of L2 teachers). These indirect measures are global measures
of attitudes toward the target language community and so the extent to
which they adequately reflect the integrative motive, as Gardner would
define it, is unclear.
Just as those reviewed in Section 1, these studies yielded a variety of
results, positive (Anisfeld & Lambert, 1961; Spolsky, 1969; Tucker,
Hamayan, & Genesee, 1976), nil (Lukmani, 1972; Lyczak, Fu, & Ho,
1976; Muchnick & Wolfe, 1982; Wong, 1982) and negative (Au, 1984).
Some others are uniterpretable or ambiguous (Oller, Baca, & Vigil, 1977;
Oller, Hudson, & Liu, 1977). Only a minority of these studies found
modest, positive relationships between some aspects of the integrative
motive and L2 achievement. That the integrative motive hypothesis lacks
generality is by now firmly established. The studies by Muchnick and
84 Language Learning Vol. 38, No. I

Wolfe (1982), Wong (1982), and Au (1984) provided strong evidence for
a lack of generality because they employed scales adapted from the
AMTB that were subsequently found to have high reliability with the
subjects in question, and yet no relationship or a negative relationship
between scores on them and L2 achievement were observed.

PROPOSITION 2: THE CULTURAL BELIEF

HYPOTHESIS

This proposition maintains that cultural beliefs within a particular

milieu could influence (1) the development of the integrative motive
and (2) the extent to which the integrative motive relates to L2 achieve-
ment. Although this proposition has often been reiterated (Gardner &
Lambert, 1972; Gardner, 1979; Gardner, 1982 for example), no effort
has been made by them to clearly define what constitutes a cultural
belief. This inevitably renders the hypothesis vague and difficult to eval-
uate. A number of cultural belief-type measures (based on the present
author’s intuition of what might be regarded as a cultural belief) such as
the ethnocentrism scale, the California F scale and the anomie scale had
been given attention in the early stages of the development of Gardner’s
theory (Gardner, 1960; Smythe, Stennett, & Feenstra, 1972; Gardner &
Lambert, 1972, the Louisiana study -Americans learning French, the
Maine study -Americans learning French, the Connecticut study -
Americans learning French). A wide variety of results were yielded.
Some found these cultural belief measures to be related to some integra-
tive motive measures therefore providing support for the first part of the
hypothesis (Smythe, Stennett, & Feenstra, 1972); others found cultural
belief measures to be directly related to L2 achievement- a finding con-
trary to the second part of the hypothesis (Gardner & Lambert, 1972,
Louisiana study -Americans learning French); still others yielded find-
ings that support neither the first nor the second part of the hypothesis
(Gardner, 1960). Such a variety of results come as no surprise because it
is quite probable that different cultural backgrounds would generate
different cultural beliefs and they in turn may or may not affect attitudes
or motivation in L2 learning. It is difficult to see how this proposition, as
it stands at this juncture, can be put to a genuine and proper empirical
test because it does not seem to have specified or even be able to specify
which cluster of cultural beliefs may be important in which setting and
what the extent of their influence on the development of attitudes and
 AU 85

motivation and consequently their influences on L2 achievement might

be. Until such a clear delineation is done, this proposition must be
regarded as an untestable notion.
Another worrisome aspect of the cultural beliefs proposition is that it
is often employed to rescue the major assumption of the theory, namely
that integrative motive facilitates L2 achievement, when evidence to the
contrary is discerned. This is amply demonstrated by the abundance of
post hoc explanations given by Gardner and his colleagues to explain
away disconfirming evidence sometimes found by them or by other
researchers (Lambert, Gardner, Barik, & Tunstall, 1963; Gardner,
Smythe, & Cltment, 1979; Gardner, 1980). Many of these explanations
appeal to contextual considerations. Indeed, a series of exchanges
between Gardner and his associates and Oller and his colleagues has
prompted Gardner into explicitly pointing out contextual considerations
as one of the three major considerations (the other two being conceptual
and statistical) that must be taken into account in evaluating evidence
(Gardner, 1980). Few would contest him on this count. But how much
weight should we give to contexts? How should contexts be classified?
Should we apply contextual considerations to negative evidence only?
Gardner’s 1980 paper provides little help as to how best to approach
these questions. But, they are important questions because, in the long
run, if left unanswered, they must have a damaging effect on the theory.
Contextual considerations with all their vagueness may serve only to
render the theory immune to disconfirming evidence, thereby granting
infallibility to the theory- a state some philosophers of science, notably
Popper (1972) attribute to nonscientific theories.

PROPOSITION 3: THEACTIVELEARNER
HYPOTHESIS
Proposition 3 maintains that integratively motivated L2 learners
achieve high L2 proficiency because they are active learners. Studies
relevant to this proposition have sought to prove and have indeed found
that subjects with high integrative motive tended to be more active in L2
learning situations, whether they be formal learning contexts (Gliksman,
Gardner, & Smythe, 1982) or informal learning contexts (Cltment,
Gardner, & Smythe, 1975). Moreover, those who had low integrative
motive were more likely to drop out of the L2 learning program (Bartley,
1969, 1970; Gardner & Smythe, 1975). However, all these studies suf-
86 Language Learning Vol. 38, No. 1

fered from one serious methodological weakness. There is an obvious

confounding variable - subjects’ level of L2 achievement. The possibility
of highly integratively motived subjects engaging in more active choice
behaviors merely or mainly as a result of having better L2 proficiency
cannot be ruled out. Gardner and his colleagues clearly take the view that
integrative motive leads to active choice behaviors in learning an L2
which in turn lead to high L2 achievement (Gardner, Smythe, ClCment, &
Gliksman, 1976, pp. 209-211). While not denying this view provides a
plausible explanation for the results, one is entitled to entertain the possi-
bility of either high L2 achievement and high integrative motive jointly
contributing to inducing active choice behaviors or even that high L2
achievement leads to a number of positive attitudes (toward the lan-
guage, toward the community, etc.) and high motivation to learn an L2,
which in their turn lead to more active behaviors. We do not have evi-
dence for the first possibility because L2 achievement has not been con-
trolled for in the relevant studies while the second possibility has been
fiercely contested by Gardner and his associates (Gardner, 1983;
Gardner, Lalonde, & Pierson, 1983). This leads us to the “what leads to
what” question and it is to this causal problem we now turn.

PROPOSITION 4: THE CAUSALITY HYPOTHESIS

The causality hypothesis maintains that integrative motive is causally
related to L2 achievement, the former the cause, the latter the effect.
Three studies are particularly relevant to this proposition.
Burstall, Jamieson, Cohen, and Hargreaves (1974) reported a longitu-
dinal study spanning a period of ten years between 1964 and 1974 con-
ducted in the United Kingdom. Subjects initially were 5,700 primary
pupils ages 8 through 11. They were tested, among other measures, on
their attitudes toward learning French and on their achievement in
French at intervals throughout the 10-year period. Comparing their
scores obtained during the primary and the secondary stages of the
experiment, calculation of the partial correlations indicated strongly that
early achievement in French affected later attitudes toward learning
French and later achievement in French to a significantly greater extent
than early attitudes toward learning French affected the subsequent
development of either attitudes or achievement. This result suggests a
causal link in the opposite direction to the hypothesized one.
Gardner (1983) presented data from 15 sampIes of students who were
 Au 87

tested in two consecutive years. For each sample, 2 x 2 multivariate

analyses of variance were conducted with the dependent variables being
composite scores of integrativeness, attitudes toward the learning situa-
tion, and motivation. The factors were time of testing (first vs. second)
and grades in French after the first year (above or below the median). It
was found that students who did relatively poorly did not evidence more
decrease in any of the composite scores the next year than did those who
did well. Attitudes, however, were found to become less favorable with
increased training. While this result did not replicate that of Burstall’s
(1 974), neither did it support the causality hypothesis.
Au (1984) using a longitudinal design and regression technique did not
find any of the first-test integrative motive variables to be significant
predictors of the retest L2 achievement measures. Again, the causality
hypothesis was not supported.
A number of very recent studies using the Linear Structural Analysis
(LISREL) technique (Gardner, 1983; Gardner, Lalonde, & Pierson,
1983; Lalonde & Gardner, 1983) were said to have demonstrated compo-
nents of the integrative motive causally affecting L2 achievement. These
studies generally found causal paths linking attitudes and motivational
characteristics and L2 achievement with the former being the cause, the
latter the effect. However, the LISREL technique was capable of estab-
lishing a causal link between two variables with the cause variable mea-
sured later in time than the effect variable (Gardner, Lalonde, & Pierson,
1983).2 This raises a serious question concerning how much a causal link
yielded by this kind of causal modeling indicates an empirical causal
relationship-one in which A causes B presupposes A precedes B.3
Therefore, the causality hypothesis as it stands at present receives no
confirming empirical evidence while some negative evidence has been
provided by Burstall et al., 1974.

PROPOSITION 5 : THE TWO-PROCESS

HYPOTHESIS
Proposition 5 maintains that linguistic aptitude and the integrative
motive are two independent factors affecting L2 achievement. While
both are important in formal learning settings, the latter will assume
greater importance in informal settings.
The second part of this proposition seems to have received virtually no
attention. Indeed, few of the studies cited above have been conducted
88 Language Learning Vol. 38, No. I

with subjects learning an L2 in a purely informal setting. This part of the

proposition remains an interesting conjecture.
Of the 10 studies cited in Section 1 of Table A-1 , (see Appendix) which
included linguistic aptitude measures, four found them to be related to
some components of the integrative motive (Gardner, 1960; Gardner &
Lambert, 1972, the Louisiana study -French-Americans learning
French, the Maine study; Smythe, Stennett, & Feenstra, 1972). The
notion that they are two independent factors therefore does not stand up
to the empirical evidence. One may state that these relationships are not
very substantial and some studies did not indeed find any significant
relationships between aptitude and integrative motive measures, thereby
maintaining a weaker version of the first part of the proposition, namely
that linguistic aptitude and integrative motive are two relatively indepen-
dent rather than entirely separate factors in facilitating the learning of an
L2. The relationship between these two factors however is there and
furthermore, neither the proposition nor the theory as a whole gives an
indication as to why such a relationship should exist. In other words,
why should integratively motivated learners also tend to be linguistically
gifted in some cases? Could it be that students are integratively moti-
vated because they happen to be linguistically gifted in the first place,
and as time passes excel in L2 proficiency and become more interested in
it, develop a more favorable attitude towards the L2 community, have a
higher desire to learn more, and, in short, become more integratively
motivated? The opposite causal direction, namely that integrative motive
can lead to high linguistic aptitude seems less likely. This kind of causal
inference is, of course, highly speculative but if the theory continues to
ignore the link between linguistic aptitude and integrative motive some-
times found, sceptics may gradually become convinced that the theory is
not capable of handling these findings and may feel justified in providing
their own interpretations, however speculative they happen to be.

RECENTDEVELOPMENTS
Recent developments in Gardner’s theory have involved (1) explicating
and empirically investigating the role integrative motive plays in bringing
about better L2 achievement; (2) asserting the causal role of the integra-
tive motive by empirical investigation using the causal modeling method;
and (3) postulating a further motivational construct -self-confidence in
L2 - and relating it to the theory by claiming that this proposed construct
 Au 89

forms the basis of a secondary motivational process (as opposed to the

integrative motive which is referred to as the primary motivational pro-
cess) which serves to sustain motivation in learning an L2 (ClCment,
1980). The first two recent trends have been discussed earlier. What
follows will be an evaluation of the third line of recent development.

THE SECONDARY MOTIVATIONAL PROCESS

PROPOSED BY CLGMENT (1980)

The basis for ClCment’s proposal is his own research conducted within
the framework of the social-psychological model proposed by Gardner.
Two studies cited above (ClCment, Gardner, & Smythe, 1977, 1980) seem
to suggest that although some variables of the integrative motive are
related to some measures of L2 achievement, the majority of the integra-
tive motive variables does not seem to be associated with L2 achieve-
ment. Furthermore, the relationship in these studies is rather modest
compared to that found between L2 achievement and self-confidence
measures (anxiety associated with L2 learning and self-ratings of
proficiency- regarded as reflecting one’s confidence in one’s L2). From
these two studies, ClCment (1980) proposed not only that self-confidence
in L2 may form the basis of a secondary motivational process, but also
that it could at times assume a more important role than the integrative
motive in the learning of a L2.
One common weakness of the (ClCment et al.) studies cited above
seems to be the operational measures of self-confidence in L2 employed.
To what extent can self-ratings of one’s L2 proficiency be regarded as
solely reflecting self-confidence in L2? It seems highly probable that
when asked to self-rate one’s L2 proficiency, one would try to judge one’s
competency. This would imply that L2 proficiency rather than self-
confidence would play a definite if not a major role in the self-rating of
L2 proficiency. Hence the ratipgs hardly can be taken as a variable
explaining level of L2 proficiency. Operational problem aside, before
accepting self-confidence in L2 as an important motivational basis for
learning an L2, a first and foremost question seems to be how often
anxiety or confidence has been found to be related to L2 achievement.
Other studies in this area have included confidence or anxiety measures
and related them to L2 achievement. Gardner, Smythe, and ClCment
(1979) found that French classroom anxiety was related to one of the
three L2 achievement measures in their American sample but not in their
90 Language Learning Vol. 38, No. I

Canadian sample. Gardner, Smythe, and Brunet (1977) in addition to the

findings reported in Table A-1 (see Appendix), also found that as sub-
jects’ level of French proficiency increased they became less anxious in
the French classroom situation. Muchnick and Wolfe (1982) however did
not find that French classroom anxiety, a factor distilled from the
AMTB, was related to grade in Spanish. Pierson, Fu, and Lee (1980)
found that a self-confidence factor entered the regression equation sig-
nificantly as the third best predictor of cloze score in English. However
the direction of relationship was such that the more subjects said they felt
uneasy and insecure when speaking English, the higher their cloze scores,
a negative finding as far as ClCment’s proposal is concerned.
The bulk of the studies suggests there may well be a modest link
between self-confidence or the lack of anxiety in L2 and L2 achievement,
although some studies did not find such a link, while two reported an
opposite relationship, namely that high anxiety was associated with high
L2 achievement. However, ClCment’s claim is not simply that there is a
link between self-confidence and L2 achievement, but that it serves as a
motivational basis for L2 achievement. Because the studies cited above
(Gardner, Smythe, & Brunet, 1977; Gardner, Smythe, & ClCment, 1979;
Pierson, Fu, & Lee, 1980; Muchnick & Wolfe, 1982) did not find motiva-
tional intensity to be related to self-confidence or anxiety (except ClCm-
ent et al.’s 1977 & 1980 studies which reported a modest connection), we
do not seem to have sufficient evidence to evaluate his further claim.

SUMMARY

This paper has attempted to give an evaluative account of Gardner’s

social-psychological theory of L2 learning by drawing on an extensive
survey of the literature. Gardner’s theory was broken down into five
propositions. The integrative motive hypothesis maintains that integra-
tive motive is positively related to L2 achievement. This hypothesis was
found to lack generality. Moreover, the notion that integrative motive is
a unitary concept was not supported by the empirical evidence.
The cultural belief hypothesis maintains that cultural beliefs can influ-
ence the development of the integrative motive and the extent to which
the integrative motive relates to L2 achievement. Because little effort has
been expended to define what constitutes a cultural belief, this hypothe-
sis is very much an untested notion.
It is worrisome that contextual considerations are often invoked to
 Au 91

explain away disconfirming evidence concerning the integrative motive

hypothesis. Armed with contextual considerations, it is not clear what
sort of evidence will succeed in falsifying the theory.
The active learner hypothesis maintains that integrative motivated
learners are better learners because they are more active learners. Studies
relevant to this hypothesis all suffered from one serious methodological
weakness: the level of L2 proficiency has never been controlled -
rendering confirming evidence weak. Moreover, the question of cause
and effect has not been addressed by these studies.
The causality hypothesis maintains that integrative motive causally
affects L2 achievement. Results obtained using the Linear Structural
Analysis (LISREL) technique are dubious because LISREL is capable of
establishing a reverse temporal causal path. It is extremely doubtful that
the LISREL results as obtained by Gardner and his associates demon-
strate empirical causal relationships. Other relevant results (Burstall et
al., 1974) suggest a causal relation opposite to that predicted by the
causality hypothesis.
Although Gardner’s (1983) results did not replicate those of Burstall et
al.3 (1974), neither did they support the hypothesis. The two-process
hypothesis maintains that linguistic aptitude and integrative motive are
two independent factors affecting L2 proficiency. Conflicting evidence
exists in relation to this hypothesis. Linguistic-aptitude measures some-
times relate to integrative motive measures, and in other studies do not.
Recently, ClCment (1980) hypothesized a second motivational basis for
the learning of an L2, that self-confidence is positively related to L2
achievement. It remains to be seen how far self-ratings of L2, a measure
Clement et al. (1977, 1980) used to elicit self-confidence, can be regarded
as reflecting self-confidence independently of one’s level of L2 profi-
ciency. Moreover, for self-confidence to be a motivational basis for L2
achievement, it has to be convincingly demonstrated that self-confidence
is causally affecting L2 achievement. Studies that bear directly on this
issue have yet to be conducted.
The kind of causal modeling technique employed by Gardner and his
associates seems incapable of generating concrete empirical evidence
concerning causal relationship. If complex causal models like these
(Clement, 1980; Gardner, 1983) are to be tested adequately, longitudinal
studies like Burstall et al.’s (1974) should be carried out.
92 Language Learning Vol. 38, No. I

NOTES

'Oiler (1981) has attempted an evaluation of Gardner’s theory. It has however

not touched on as many aspects as the present paper.
2Gardner & Lalonde (1983) defended the reverse path by asserting that
although the measure of French achievement (the cause variable) was taken later
than the measure of motivation (the effect variable), the achievement measure
was however based on the work of the entire term. That they should invoke
temporal considerations other than the order in which measures were taken only
in the face of embarrassing evidence is puzzling. It is clear that the same sort of
consideration can be given to supporting as well as disconfirming evidence. It
must be said that if the temporal order in which measures were taken is not to be
taken seriously, we would have little chance of arriving at a consensus concerning
temporal and hence causal relationships.
3When LISREL establishes a causal path between 2 variables measured simul-
taneously, the extent to which such a path indicates an empirical causal relation-
ship is not clear. An empirical causal relationship necessarily entails a temporal
relation between 2 variables (although the reverse is not the case). Many of
Gardner’s LISREL results are of this nature.

REFERENCES

Anisfeld, M. & Lambert, W. E. (1961) Social and psychological variables in

learning Hebrew. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 524-529.
Au, S . Y. (1984) Social psychological variables in second language learning.
Unpublished master’s thesis, City University, London, United Kingdom.
Bartley, D. E. (1969). A pilot study of aptitude and attitude factors in language
dropout. California Journal of Education Research, 20, 48-55.
Bartley, D. E. (1970). The importance of the attitude factor in language dropout:
A preliminary investigation of group and sex differences. Foreign Language
Annals, 3, 383-393.
Burstall, C., Jamieson, M., Cohen, S., & Hargreaves, M. (1974) Primary French
in the balance. London, United Kingdom: NFER Publishing Company,
Limited.
Chihara, T. and Oller, J. W. (1978). Attitudes and attained proficiency in EFL:
A sociolinguistic study of adult Japanese speakers. Language Learning, 28,
55-68.
Clement, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a sec-
ond language. In H. Giles, W. P.Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.). Language.’
Social psychological perspectives (pp. 147-154). Oxford, United Kingdom:
Pergamon Press
Clement, R., Gardner, R. C., & Smythe P. C. (1975). Inter-ethnic contact: Atti-
tudinal consequences. Research Bulletin No. 336. London, Ontario: University
of Western Ontario.
 Au 93

CICment, R., Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1977). Motivational variables in

second language acquisition: A study of Francophones learning English. Cana-
dian Journal of Behavioural Science, 9, 123-133.
CICment, R., Gardner, R. C. & Smythe, P. C. (1980). Social and individual
factors in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Sci-
ence, 12, 293-302.
Gardner, R. C. (1960). Motivational variables in second-language acquisition.
Abstract of doctoral dissertation, McGill University, 1960. In R. C. Gardner &
W. E. Lambert (1972) Attitude and motivation in second language Learning
(pp. 199-216). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.
Gardner, R. C. (1979). Social psychological aspects of second language acquisi-
tion. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.). Language and social psychology (pp.
193-220). Oxford, United Kingdom: Basil Blackwell.
Gardner, R. C. (1980). On the validity of affective variables in second language
acquisition: Conceptual, contextual, and statistical considerations. Language
Learning, 30, 255-270.
Gardner, R. C. (1982). Language attitudes and language learning. In E. B. Ryan
& H. Giles (Eds.). Attitudes toward language variation: Social and applied
contexts, (pp. 132-147). London, United Kingdom: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (1983). Learning another language: A true social psychological
experiment. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2, 219-240.
Gardner, R. C., CICment, R., Smythe, P. C., & Smythe. C. L. (1979). Attitudes
and motivation test battery: Revised manual. Research Bulletin No. IS. Lon-
don, Ontario: University of Western Ontario.
Gardner, R. C., Lalonde, R., & Pierson R. (1983). The socio-educational model
of second language acquisition: An investigation using LISREL causal model-
ing. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2, 1-15.
Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second-
language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-272.
Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitude and motivation in second
language learning. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.
Gardner, R. C. & Smythe, P. C. (1975). Motivation and second-language acqui-
sition. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, 218-230.
Gardner, R. C., Smythe, P. C., & Brunet, G. R. (1977). Intensive second lan-
guage study: Effects on attitudes, motivation. Language Learning, 27,
243-261.
Gardner, R. C., Smythe, P. C., &Clement, R. (1979). Intensive second language
study in a bicultural milieu: An investigation of attitudes, motivation and
language proficiency. Language learning, 29, 305-320.
Gardner, R. C., Smythe, P. C., Cltment, R., & Gliksman, L. (1976). Second-
language learning: A social psychological perspective. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 32, 198-213.
Gliksman, L., Gardner, R. C. & Smythe, P. C. (1982). The role of the integrative
motive on students’ participation in the French classroom. The Canadian Mod-
ern Language Review, 14, 625-635.
Lalonde, R. N. 8~Gardner, R. C. (1983). Investigating a causal model of second
94 Language Learning Vof. 38, No. I

language acquisition: Where does personalityfit? Paper presented at the Sec-

ond International Conference on Social Psychology and Language, Bristol
University, United Kingdom.
Lambert, W. E., Gardner, R. C., Barik, H. C., & Tunstall, K. (1963). Attitudi-
nal and cognitive aspects of intensive study of a second language. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 358-368.
Lukmani, Y. M. (1972). Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Language
Learning, 22, 261-273.
Lyczak, R., Fu, G. S., & Ho, A. (1976). Attitudes of Hong Kong bilinguals
toward English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 7,
425-438.
Muchnick, A. G. & Wolfe, D. E. (1982). Attitudes and motivations of American
students of Spanish. The Canadian Modern Lartguage Review, 38, 254-261.
Oller, J. W. (1981). Research on the measurement of affective variables: Some
remaining questions. In R. Anderson (Ed.). New dimensions in L2 acquisition
research (pp. 14-28). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.
Oller, J. W., Baca, L., & Vigil, F. (1977). Attitude and attained proficiency in
ESL: A sociolinguistic study of Mexican-American in the Southwest. TESOL
Quarterly, 11, 173-183.
Oller, J. W., Hudson, A. J., & Liu, P. F. (1977). Attitudes and attained profi-
ciency in ESL: A sociolinguistic study of native speakers of Chinese in the
United States. Language Learning, 27, 1-26.
Pierson, H. D., Fu, G. S., & Lee, S. Y. (1980). An analysis of the relationship
between language attitudes and English attainment of secondary students in
Hong Kong. Language Learning, 30, 289-316.
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge:An evolutionary approach. Oxford,
United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Randhawa, B. S. & Korpan, S. M. (1973). Assessment of some significant affec-
tive variables and the prediction of achievement in French. Canadian Journal
of Behavioural Science, 5, 24-33.
Smythe, P. C., Stennett, R. C., &Feenstra, H. J. (1972). Attitude, aptitude, and
type of instructional programme in second language acquisition. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, 4, 307-321.
Spolsky, B. (1969). Attitudinal aspects of second language learning. Language
Learning, 19, 271-283.
Tucker, G. R., Hamayan, E., & Genesee, F. H. (1976). Affective, cognitive and
social factors in second-language acquisition. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 3, 214-226.
Wong, M. J. (1982). The role of attitudes and motivation in second language
acquisition among adolescent native Chinese speakers in the U.S. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, San Francisco,
California.
APPENDIX
Table A-1
Studies Relating Integrative Motive and L2 Achievement
Authors and Date Procedure
Section 1
Gardner & Lambert, 1959 75 grade 11 English Canadian high school
pupils and 14 variables were used and
results were factor analyzed into 4
orthogonal factors.
Gardner, 1960 83 grade 11 English Canadian students
learning French as an L2 and 30 variables
were used. Results were factor analyzed into
orthogonal factors.
Lambert, Gardner, Barik, 192 students attending a 6-week French
& Tunstall, 1963 summer school as subjects. They were
tested among other things on their attitudes
toward France, orientation to learning
French and French achievement.
Gardner & Lambert, 1972: 96 American subjects and 41 variables were
the Louisiana study used, 17 of which were French achievement
measures. Factor analysis yielded 10
orthogonal factors.
the Maine study 145 American subjects and 41 variables
were used, 15 of which were French
achievement measures. Factor analysis
yielded orthogonal factors.
Relevant results
~~
Achievement was found to load highly (loading > .30) on both
the linguistic aptitude factor and on the motivation factor. These
two factors were found to be independent of each other.
Achievement measures were found to load with linguistic and
integrative motive measures, Both orientation and desire to learn
French were found to load with all 3 measures of linguistic
aptitude.
Correlation analysis revealed for the elementary group, both
attitudes toward France and orientation to learn French
correlated positively and significantly with achievement in
French. For the advanced group, orientation correlated with
achievement in French whereas attitudes toward France were
found to be negatively and significantly correlated with French
achievement.
The factor matrix revealed one motivation factor and one
attitude factor. The motivation factor received one high loading
from a French achievement measure while the attitude factor did
not relate to either the motivation measures or any of the French
achievement measures.
A motivation and an attitude factor were yielded. The former
received high loading from one achievement measure while the
latter did not receive high loading from any of the 15
achievement measures. Measures of integrativeness were not
found to load with measures of motivation.
 Table A-I
Studies Relating Integrative Motive and L2 Achievement, continued
Authors and Date Procedure
the Connecticut study 142 American subjects and 41 variables
were use, 15 of which were French
achievement measures. Factor analysis
yielded orthogonal factors.
the Louisiana study 80 high school French-American pupils and
41 variables 17 of which were French
achievement measures. 12 orthogonal
factors were yielded.
the Maine study 98 French-Americans and 41 variables were
used. 9 orthogonal factors were yielded.
the Philippine study 103 Philippine high school students learning
English and a total of 47 variables were
used. Factor analysis yielded 7 orthogonal
factors.
Smythe, Stennett, & 2 samples of English Canadian subjects
Feenstra, 1972 learning English acted as subjects. One
sample followed a traditional teaching
program (T-R sample) the other followed
the audiolingual approach (A-L sample). 31
variables were factor analyzed into 5
orthogonal factors.
Relevant results
An attitude and a motivation factor were yielded. The attitude
factor received no appreciable loading from any of the 15
achievement measures while the motivation factor received one
high achievement loading. Integrative orientation was negatively
related to 3 achievement measures. Measures of integrativeness
did not load substantially with measures of motivation.
The integrative motive factor did not receive high loading from
any of the 17 achievement measures. Attitudes toward
French-Americans loaded with one achievement measure in one
factor and with 3 achievement measures and 1 aptitude measure
in another factor.
Desire to learn French and motivational intensity to learn French
loaded with one achievement measure. The integrative motive
factor received high negative loadings from one MLAT measure
and one achievement measure.
5 scales of the integrative motive loaded highly with two
measures of English achievement. Instrumental orientation
loaded with 2 English achievement measures.
For the T-R sample, the orientation index loaded with 2 MLAT
subtests and 5 measures of French achievement. A factor labeled
the motivation factor received no high loading from French
achievement measures. For the A-L sample, the motivation
factor received high loadings from 3 French achievement
measures.
 Gardner, Smythe, & 3 1 measures were administered to 62
Brunet, 1977 Canadians both before and after their
5-week intensive French course.
ClCment, Gardner, & A total of 304 grade 10 and 11 Montreal
Smythe, 1977 Francophone students were tested on a
number of integrative motive measures and
3 English achievement measures. Scores so
obtained were factor analyzed separately for
each sample yielding 4 orthogonal factors
for each sample.
Gardner, Smythe, & 2 samples, one American the other
ClCmenet, 1979 Canadian, of adult students following an
intensive French language program were
pre- and post-tested on a series of
attitudinal, motivational and French
achievement measures. Factor analyzing
each sample separately yielded 3 orthogonal
factors for both samples.
CICment, Gardner, & 223 grade 11 Francophone students from
Smythe, 1980 Montreal were tested on a number of
integrative motive measures and 4 English
achievement measures. Factor analysis
revealed 3 orthogonal factors.
~~
Section 2
Anisfeld & Lambert, 1961 Scores obtained from measures of
achievement in Hebrew were correlated with
scores on the Anti-Semitism (A-S) scale and
with that of the orientation index. Subjects
were 81 Canadian Jewish children from 3
different Hebrew classes.
Comparing the pre- and post-scores, it was found that subjects
had become significantly more ethnocentric, more highly
motivated to learn French and had more opportunity to use
French. They became however, significantly less interested in
foreign languages and less integratively orientated. Their skills in
French were naturally found to improve throughout the course.
For the grade 10 sample, 3 achievement measures loaded with 3
integrative measures. For the grade 11 sample, 2 English
achievement measures loaded with 4 integrative motive measures.
The integrative motive factor which had a whole host of
attitudinal and motivational measures loaded on did not receive
high loading from the English achievement measures.
For the Canadian sample, no integrative motive measure was
found to load on the achievement factor. For the Americans, one
achievement measure loaded negatively and highly on the
integrative motive factor. Comparing the pre- and post-test scores
revealed that while some measures of the integrative motive
received significantly higher scores, other measures of the
integrative motive received significantly lower scores. This was
true for both samples.
Motivational intensity loaded with 2 measures of English
achievement. An integrative motive factor which received high
loadings from a number of integrative motive measures did not
receive substantial loadings from any of the English achievement
measures.
For 2 classes (A and B), the A-S score was negatively and
significantly correlated with achievement measure. Scores
obtained from the orientation index were found to be negatively
and significantly correlated with achievement ratings in class C
only indicating a positive relationship between instrumental
orientation and achievement.
 Table A-1
Studies Relating Integrative Motive and L2 Achievement, continued
Authors and Date Procedure Relevant results

Spolsky, 1969 4 groups of subjects totaling 315 students of The integrative motive as elicited by the Spolsky identity scales
diverse first language backgrounds learning was found to be positively and significantly correlated with
English in the U.S. were administered the English proficiently for all groups.
Spolsky identity scales.

Lukmani, 1972 60 Marathi speaking high school girls Ratings of the English speaking community did not correlate
learning English as a L2 in India were with cloze score. Cloze score correlated positively and
administered direct questions asking significantly with instrumental motivation but not with
subjects’ reasons for learning English as integrative motivation as measured by the direct questions.
well as the Spolsky identity scales. Subjects’
English proficiency was measured by a
cloze test.

Randhawa & Korpan, 1973 100 grades 7 and 8 Canadian pupils learning 30.6% of the total variance was found to be accounted for by all
French acted as subjects. Scores of an the 7 independent variables combined.
attitude toward learning French scale
specifically designed for use in this study
were factor analyzed into 4 orthogonal
factors. These factors together with 3
integrative measures were entered into a
regression equation using subjects’
achievement ratings as independent
variables.

Tucker, Hamayan, & Subjects were 74 Canadian grade 7 pupils. It was found that the factor which was defined by high loadings
Genesee, 1976 Scores obtained from a series of attitudinal from scales designed to measure subjects’ attitudes toward
and motivational measures adapted from French language and speakers came out as the significant
the AMTB were factor analyzed into 4 predictor in all 4 regression equations.
factors which were subsequently used as
predictor variables in 4 regression equations
using 4 different achievement measures as
dependent variables.
Lyczak, Fu, & Ho, 1976 210 1st year Chinese (Cantonese speaking)
students at the University of Hong Kong
learning English acted as subjects. The
matched-guise technique was used to elicit
attitudes toward learning English.
Oller, Baca, & Vigil, 1977 60 Mexican women learning English as a L2
in a Job Corps were administered the
Spolsky identity scales and direct questions
concerning reasons for learning English
adapted from Gardner and Lambert (1972).
Each of the 4 Spolsky scales and the direct
questions were first factor analyzed
individually and orthogonal factors
obtained entered into 5 different equations
using subjects’ cloze scores as dependent
variables.
Oller, Hudson, & Liu, 44 native speakers of Chinese university
1977 students in America were administered the
Spolsky identity scales as well direct
questions concerning subjects’ reasons for
coming to the U.S., their attitudes toward
the U.S., and their reasons for learning
English. Their English proficiency was
measured by a doze test. Exactly the same
procedures employed in Oller, Baca, &
Vigil’s 1977 study were used to analyze
results.
Chihara 62 Oller, 1978 The methodology employed was identical to
the previous study. Subjects were 123
Japanese adults learning English in Japan.
No significant correlation was obtained between the differential
scores (ratings of the English guises minus ratings of Chinese
guises) and achievement ratings in English.
8 factors were identified for the American ratings. Two entered
the regression equation significantly. The 1st factor was
principally defined by both favorable as well as unfavorable
traits while the 2nd was primarily defined by favorable traits. 7
orthogonal factors were distilled from the direct questions. One
labeled instrumental orientation entered the regression equation
and was found to be negatively related to L2 achievement.
Subjects had high English proficiency if they rated Americans
high on the 2 factors labeled Americans as successful, Americans
as helpful and low on the 2 factors labeled Americans as
sensitive and Americans as happy. The 1st two and the 4th
factors contained all favorable traits while the 3rd had both
favorable and unfavorable traits loaded on. Results obtained
from the direct questions indicated those who had low doze
scores were inclined to stay permanently in the U.S., thought
their job opportunities were better in the U.S., and had long
planned to come to the U.S.
The higher subjects rated English people as confident and
broadminded, the lower their doze scores. Both confident and
broadminded were favorable traits. The higher they rated English
people as modest and shy, the lower their cloze scores. The
former was a favorable trait, the latter was an unfavorable trait.
 Table A-1
Studies Relating Integrative Motive and L2 Achievement, continued
Authors and Date Procedure
Pierson, Fu, & Lee, 1980 466 secondary school pupils, all native
speakers of Chinese learning English in
Hong Kong, were administered 23 attitude
statements. Ratings obtained were factor
analyzed into 11 factors, 6 of which entered
a regression equation significantly using
their cloze scores as the predicted variable.
The Spolsky identity scales were also
administered and factor analyzed separately.
Factors so obtained were entered into 4
different regression equations using
subjects’ cloze score as the dependent
variable.
Muchnick & Wolfe, 1982 21 classes of high school students of
Spanish were administered all the scales of
the AMTB adopted for use in this study.
Wong, 1982 50 native Chinese adolescents learning
English acted as subjects. The AMTB was
adapted to measure subjects’ motivation to
learn English, orientation to learn English,
desire to learn English and attitudes toward
English.
Au, 1984 Two samples (n = 59, n = 77) of ethnic
Chinese (Cantonese) speakers of English
were tested on a number of integrative
motive and other measures. One of the
samples (n = 77) was retested 6 months later
in order to test the causality hypothesis.
Two English achievement measures were
used. Factor analysis and regression analysis
techniques were used to analyze results.
Relevant results
Results obtained from the direct questions revealed that the more
freedom subjects felt they should have in choosing the language
for instruction, the stronger their desire to learn English, the less
approval they felt they should receive from others in using
English, the less discomfort they felt about other Chinese using
English and the less they felt English was the mark of an
educated person, the higher their cloze scores. Results from the
Spolsky identity scales indicated that the more subjects felt
Western people could be described as gentle, graceful, and
trustworthy, the lower their cloze scores. The more subjects felt
Western people could be described as logically minded and wise,
hard-working and self-confident, the higher subjects’ cloze
scores. All 5 traits were favorable characteristics however.
4 orthogonal factors were yielded none of which was found to
correlate significantly with grade in Spanish.
The scales were found to yield high test-retest reliability
coefficients (average .91). No significant correlation between
scores on the AMTB and that of an English achievement test was
obtained.
Desire to learn English was found to load negatively with English
proficiency measures both in the 1st test and retest of one of the
samples (n= 77). High confidence in using English was found to
relate to high English proficiency in all samples. Using the
regression technique on the longitudinal results revealed however
that no causal statements could be made with regard to
integrative motive variables and English achievement.