- Email: [email protected]
Academic identity, self-efficacy, and self-esteem predict self-determined motivation and goals
Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 1–8
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif
Academic identity, self-efficacy, and self-esteem predict self-determined motivation and goals Meera Komarraju a,⁎, Christopher Dial b a b
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, United States Harvard University, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 4 July 2013 Received in revised form 8 January 2014 Accepted 21 February 2014 Available online xxxx Keywords: Self-efficacy Identity Self-determined motivation Goals IAT
a b s t r a c t We conducted the first tests of implicit academic identity (social versus studious) in relation to explicit academic identity (social versus studious), self-efficacy and self-esteem as predictors of self-determined motivation and goals (performance and learning). In Study 1, 366 undergraduates completed measures of implicit social/studious identity and implicit attitude towards social/studious domains along with explicit social/studious identity, academic self-efficacy, and self-determined motivation. In Study 2, 128 undergraduates completed implicit measures of social/studious identity, implicit self-esteem, and explicit measures of self-esteem, and goals (performance and learning). Our results offer the first evidence of significant correspondence between implicit and explicit academic identity and the unique, incremental contributions of implicit measures beyond explicit measures in explaining self-determined motivation and goal orientation. We also establish that socially oriented students have lower academic self-efficacy, lower self-determined motivation, and a preference for performance goals; studiously oriented students report higher self-esteem and a preference for learning goals. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction College years offer a time to forge new identities. Although there are many dimensions along which students can shape their central identity, we examined two identities that may be particularly salient for motivation and goal striving: 1) ‘scholars’ invested in academic work and 2) ‘socializers’ invested in interpersonal and group socializing. Do these identities influence students' self-efficacy, self-esteem and motivation? Do students who identify more strongly as ‘scholars’ have different goals and motivations than do ‘socializers’? We attempted to answer these questions by examining college students' implicit and explicit identities as ‘scholars’ or ‘socializers’ in relation to academic self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-determined motivation and goals (performance and learning). 2. Relevant prior research 2.1. Implicit and explicit academic identity Implicit identities are typically hidden from conscious awareness, expressed more automatically, and are less susceptible to influences exerted by impression management or social desirability (Baron & Banaji, 2006). In contrast, explicit identities tend to be within conscious ⁎ Corresponding author at: College of Liberal Arts, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-6502, United States. Tel.: +1 618 453 3543; fax: +1 618 453 3563. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Komarraju).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.02.004 1041-6080/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
awareness and likely to be expressed more deliberately. Similarly, implicit attitudes shaped by preverbal emotional experiences and established early in life tend to be accurate predictors of longer term behavioral patterns, whereas explicit attitudes are shaped largely by cognitive content and cultural norms and are better at predicting specific behaviors in immediate contexts (Baron & Banaji, 2006; Rudman, 2004). For instance, it has been found that implicit responses, as measured by the Implicit Associations Test (IAT), predict natural or spontaneous behavior and explicit self-report ratings predict behavior that is more deliberate or controlled (Asendorpf, Banse, & Mücke, 2002). Although implicit attitudes are moderately correlated with explicit attitudes (Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002), some researchers consider them to be more independent and dissociated (Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986). Research findings regarding the relative strength of implicit and explicit measures in predicting behavior remain inconsistent and less is known about how and when they come together or diverge in predicting behavior. Hence, we investigated the relative contributions of implicit and explicit academic preferences as predictors of students' self-determined motivation and goal orientation. 2.2. Academic identity and motivation Research regarding identity-based motivation and the influential role of possible selves (Oyserman & James, 2011; Oyserman, 2012; Oyserman & Destin, 2010) suggests that academic identities can be motivating when an aspirational self feels relevant in the academic classroom and when individuals experience environments that match their
2
M. Komarraju, C. Dial / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 1–8
sense of self. For instance, when individuals believe their identity and actions are congruent they tend to persist longer at a challenging task because they find it to be meaningful and significant (Oyserman & Destin, 2010). On the other hand, if individuals are performing actions that they believe are incongruent with their identity they are more likely to give up when they encounter difficulties. Thus, identity congruence has the potential to influence students' academic choices (such as attending class) or behaviors (asking questions in class, or studying for a test). For example, Oyserman and Destin (2010) reported that although almost 90% of students from urban schools in low-income areas see themselves as being college educated, they do not have an educationdependent identity or a context that evokes such an identity; hence, they are less likely to pursue a college education. Similarly, Devos and Cruz Torres (2007) found that Latino students tend to implicitly selfidentify as low achievers when they have strong identification with their ethnic group and associate it with low-achieving stereotypes. In contrast, Latino students implicitly identify as high achievers if they have strong identification with significant others who are viewed as high achievers. Thus, for Latino students, identification with academic endeavors is predicted by a function of their ethnic identity and the academic achievement of significant others. The motivating influence of academic identity is also apparent in results showing that first generation college students obtain better grades after experiencing a match between their sense of self (independent or interdependent) and the university's culture (which is more independent), even after controlling for SAT scores and race (Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012). Likewise, the negative consequences of identity mismatches are evident when women who implicitly associate math more strongly with men show a weaker preference for math, less identification with it, less skill, less engagement and more anxiety in math-related activities (Nosek & Smyth, 2011). Fortunately, implicit identity appears to be malleable, as women who come into contact with a role model with whom they can identify, feel more confident and efficacious, show increased class participation, seek help from instructors after class, and report more awareness of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) careers (Stout, Dasgupta, Hunsinger, & McManus, 2011). Thus, implicit identity measures appear to capture and reflect subtle and complex aspects of the self such as influences from early experiences and messages received from family, teachers, or peers and these seem to have motivating influences. 2.3. Self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-determined motivation, and goals In addition to the motivational influence of academic identity, researchers have also examined academic self-efficacy (academic selfconfidence) and self-esteem (self-worth) in relation to academic motivation assessed as self-determined motivation and goals (performance and mastery). Although there is evidence of a robust relationship between self-efficacy and achievement, we need a more thorough understanding of the proximal mechanisms that explain how and why self-efficacy influences the motivation to pursue academic goals (Zimmerman, 2000). Selfdetermination theory explains how and why individuals may differ in their academic motivation as it views motivation as a continuum with high intrinsic motivation and amotivation on both ends and extrinsic motivation located in the middle (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to this theory, by satisfying three innate needs that include feeling competent by successfully meeting challenges, feeling autonomous from having choices, and feeling connected to others in caring relationships, individuals experience a stronger sense of self-determination, ‘agency,’ and greater intrinsic motivation (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Self-determination theory's basic theoretical constructs are operationalized by the Academic Motivation Scale, and empirical evidence suggests that students who feel more competent (high academic self-efficacy) tend to experience greater self-determined motivation and show greater persistence; in contrast, amotivated students have the least self-determination and are more apathetic and
disengaged (Vallerand, 2000; Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992; Vallerand et al., 1992). High academic self-efficacy and implicit beliefs about the changeable/malleable quality of intelligence are associated with stronger motivation, greater concentration, and deeper processing of study material (Ommundsen, Haugen, & Lund, 2005). Individuals who internalize achievement goals display greater self-regulation and self-directed behaviors that are associated with enhanced learning and performance (Ryan & Deci, 2006). Further, priming individuals with relevant implicit intrinsic and extrinsic cues has been found to influence motivation for performance behaviors (Levesque, Copeland, & Sutcliffe, 2008). Regarding self-esteem and motivation, although there is some confirmation that a positive academic identity develops from prior successful academic experiences, there is an ongoing debate about the reciprocity of this relationship as evidence also exists in support of a positive selfconcept leading to successful experiences (Wigfield & Wagner, 2005). Further, good performance in school has been shown to lead to higher self-esteem, whereas self-esteem has shown no impact on academic achievement suggesting that some aspects of this relationship are still unclear (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). In addition, self-esteem along with family support appears to be important for learning and achievement (Sergio, Cuestas, & Fenollar, 2008) and others hint at an indirect relationship between self-esteem and emotional/social problems which may lead to attrition (Crocker & Luhtanen, 2003). Thus, the relationship between self-esteem and motivation remains riddled with questions that need to be answered more completely. Research regarding sense of self and motivation measured via academic goals suggests that students are motivated by different cues within the same environment (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). For instance, individuals who feel competent (high self-efficacy) are driven by performance–approach goals and those who feel less competent and worry that they will perform poorly are driven by performance–avoidance goals (Law, Elliot, & Murayama, 2012). Likewise, students pursuing performance goals tend to believe that those who have high ability do not need to work hard and having to work hard implies that a student is not very gifted. In contrast, students pursuing learning goals feel motivated to put forth effort and view this as a path for manifesting their ability (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Consequently, learning more about the complex way in which academic identity, academic self-efficacy, and self-esteem are related to self-determined motivation and goals (learning and performance) would be valuable for educators as they seek to improve student motivation. 2.4. Current studies In Study 1, our aim was to understand the nature and role of students' academic identity, attitude towards scholarly pursuits, and selfefficacy in predicting self-determined motivation. To achieve this, we performed the first tests of ‘studious’ versus ‘social’ academic identity using both implicit (automatic) and explicit (conscious) measures of identity and attitude in relation to self-determined motivation. Next, in Study 2, we built on the first study by including implicit and explicit measures of self-esteem along with implicit and explicit academic identity and also sought a deeper understanding of the relationship between academic identity and academic motivation by using a measure of goal orientation (performance and learning). Common to both studies, we examined implicit and explicit identity as the predictors and motivation as the outcome. We assessed implicit preferences and attitudes by using the Implicit Associations Test (IAT), a popular and widely used method for measuring the strength of implicit associations (Devos & Cruz Torres, 2007; Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009; Nosek et al., 2002). The IAT operates on the assumption that it is effective in accessing information that is activated automatically or involuntarily and is less vulnerable to attempts at faking, impression management, or self-deception. Comprehensive reviews evaluating implicit measures including the IAT (Fazio & Olson; 2003; Fiedler, Messner, & Bluemke,
M. Komarraju, C. Dial / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 1–8
2006) acknowledge that implicit measures are useful alternatives to direct self-report measures; yet, they also note that the theory underlying these measures needs to be more fully developed, that the use of implicit measures for diagnostic purposes is less compelling, and that a more convincing case needs to be made regarding the automatic and nonconscious aspect of implicit cognitions. Even though the IAT has provoked a healthy debate, its psychometric properties have been established by evidence of test–retest consistency (Greenwald & Nosek, 2001), as well as predictive and convergent validity (Greenwald et al., 2009). Following the logic that an individual's associations regarding the self are intertwined within a network that is driven to maintain cognitive consistency (Greenwald et al., 2002), we hypothesized that in Study 1: 1. Students who implicitly identify as ‘studious’ rather than ‘social’ are more likely to implicitly evaluate the related domain of ‘studious’ rather than ‘social’, more positively. 2. Students who implicitly identify as ‘studious’ and show greater implicit preference for ‘studious’ are likely to report higher levels of academic self-efficacy. 3. Students who implicitly identify as ‘studious’ and show greater implicit preference for ‘studious’ are likely to report higher levels of self-determined motivation. Additionally, in Study 2, we hypothesized that: 1. Students who implicitly identify as ‘studious’ rather than ‘social’ are more likely to prefer learning goals. 2. Students who implicitly identify as ‘social’ rather than ‘studious’ are more likely to prefer performance goals. 3. Study 1 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Participants Respondents were 366 undergraduates who participated for course credit. The mean age was 19.38 years, 47% were men, majority were European American (56%) and African American (31%), 63.4% were freshmen, 17.2% were sophomores, and 8.5% were juniors and seniors. 3.1.2. Measures 3.1.2.1. Implicit academic identity and attitude. We created two Implicit Association Tests (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) for assessing implicit identity and implicit attitude involving discrimination between two target categories: Studious (library, reading, research, taking notes) and Social (fraternity, partying, movies, hanging out). We tested the association strength between these target categories and two sets of attribute categories. For identity, the attribute categories were: Me (I, mine, my, self) and Not Me (them, they, theirs, other). For attitude, the attribute categories were: Good (joy, honest, triumph, rainbow) and Bad (war, cancer, funeral, poison). For the IAT identity test, the four categories of words were studious, social, me, and not me; and for the IAT attitude test, they were studious, social, good, and bad. In condition one, participants categorized together ‘studious’ and ‘me’ by pressing one key and categorized together ‘social’ with ‘not-me’ by pressing another key. Then, in condition two, participants categorized together ‘social’ and ‘me’ by pressing one key and categorized together ‘studious’ and ‘not-me’ by pressing another key. The two conditions were presented in an inter-mixed order and we examined the response latencies in these tasks. For each IAT test, there were seven blocks of trials including three practice blocks and four blocks for data collection that included the critical conditions (Nosek et al., 2002). It was assumed that individuals would respond faster when the target categories were paired with attributes that are more strongly associated in memory. For example, an individual who strongly identifies with the academic aspects of college would respond more quickly when ‘studious + me’
3
stimuli were paired than when ‘social + me’ stimuli were paired. Similarly, if participants paired ‘social’ with ‘good’, the participant had an implicit attitude that is more positive towards social versus studious. To obtain an identity IAT score, we calculated the difference in the speed with which the participant responded to the ‘social + me’ and ‘studious + not me’ blocks versus ‘social + not me’ and ‘studious + me’ blocks expressed as an effect size or modified Cohen's d. Difference scores in the positive direction were interpreted as stronger implicit identity with ‘social’ over ‘studious’. To obtain an attitude IAT score, we calculated the difference in the speed with which the participant responded to the social + good | studious + bad blocks compared with social + bad | studious + good blocks expressed as an effect size or modified Cohen's d (Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003). Difference scores in the positive direction were interpreted as a stronger implicit preference for ‘social’ compared with ‘studious’. 3.1.2.2. Explicit academic identity. Explicit academic identity was measured by averaging across 4 items on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. For the ‘studious’ identity, the four items were, “In college, I am most myself when I am in the library, reading, working on research, or taking notes in a classroom,” and for the ‘social’ identity, the four items were, “In college, I am most myself when I am at a fraternity, partying, watching movies, or hanging out.” We created these items to match the words used in the IAT tests for the superordinate categories of ‘studious’ and ‘social’. The Cronbach's internal consistency values for this study were .82 for explicit studious identity and .68 for explicit social identity. 3.1.2.3. Academic self-efficacy: the Academic Self-Concept Scale. Academic self-efficacy: the Academic Self-Concept Scale (Reynolds, 1988) is a well established, psychometrically sound measure of academic self-efficacy that consists of 40 items assessing academic self-efficacy on a fourpoint Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree (sample item, “All in all, I feel I am a capable student”). The Cronbach's internal consistency alpha value for this study was .92. 3.1.2.4. Self-determined motivation: the Academic Motivation Scale. Selfdetermined motivation: the Academic Motivation Scale (Vallerand et al., 1992) consists of 28 items and is rated on a seven-point Likerttype scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. An index of self-determined motivation is a weighted score that includes the subscales of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation and is computed such that a higher score indicates stronger intrinsic or selfdetermined motivation (Vallerand, 2011, personal communication). In response to a question that asks participants why they attend college, participants rate their degree of agreement with items that represent intrinsic motivation (For the pleasure that I experience in broadening my knowledge about subjects which appeal to me), extrinsic motivation (In order to have a better salary later on), and amotivation or lack of motivation (Honestly, I don't know; I really feel that I am wasting my time in school). The internal consistency Cronbach's alpha values for the current study were .90 for intrinsic motivation, .88 for extrinsic motivation and .84 for amotivation. 3.1.3. Procedure Participants were tested individually and responded to two IAT tests assessing identity and attitude on the computer followed by a paper and pencil survey that included explicit measures assessing social and studious identity, academic self-efficacy, and self-determined motivation. 3.2. Results and discussion 3.2.1. Correlation analyses We found several interesting and meaningful patterns of relationships. For example, as shown in Table 1, students' implicit identity as ‘social’ rather than ‘studious’ was positively correlated with
4
M. Komarraju, C. Dial / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 1–8
Table 1 Study 1: Correlation analyses for implicit social identity, implicit attitude ‘social’ is good, academic self-efficacy, explicit studious identity, explicit social identity, and self-determined motivation. Variable
Implicit social N studious identity
Implicit social N studious attitude
Implicit social N studious identity Implicit social N studious attitude Academic self-efficacy Explicit studious identity Explicit social identity Self-determined motivation Mean SD
– .51⁎⁎ −.07 −.19⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ −.17⁎
– −.12⁎ −.23⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎ −.12⁎⁎
– .18⁎ −.03 .44⁎⁎
– −.12⁎ .28⁎
−.01 .32
−.02 .35
2.87 .39
3.84 1.31
Academic self-efficacy
Explicit studious identity
Explicit social identity
– .01 5.19 1.08
Self-determined motivation
–
⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
an implicit attitude that favored social pursuits rather than scholarly pursuits (r = .51) and was negatively correlated with explicit selfdetermined motivation (r = − .17). Further, students who implicitly evaluated the ‘social’ category more positively than the ‘studious’ category also reported lower explicit academic self-efficacy (r = −.12) and lower explicit self-determined motivation (r = −.12). 3.2.2. Regression analyses To test the relative contributions of implicit and explicit measures in predicting variance in self-determined motivation, we used hierarchical regression analyses (see Table 2). We first entered the explicit measures of identity (studious, social) and explicit academic self-efficacy in step 1, and together, these predicted a significant amount (21%) of the variance in self-determined motivation, F (3, 342) = 30.99, p = .00; academic self-efficacy and explicit studious identity were the two significant predictors. Next, in step 2, we entered the implicit measures of identity and attitude and together, these explained an additional 2% of incremental variance in self-determined motivation that was significant, F (2, 340) = 3.20, p = .04; the implicit identity measure emerged as the significant predictor. The negative beta weight for implicit identity indicates that a stronger identification with the ‘social’ category is associated with lower self-determined motivation. 3.2.3. Partial mediation To gain a more complete and thorough understanding of the complex link between our implicit and explicit measures and selfdetermined motivation, we examined academic self-efficacy as a potential mediator and found it to partially mediate the following relationships: a) between implicit attitude towards ‘studious’ versus ‘social’ categories and self-determined motivation, as well as b) the relationship between explicit identity as ‘studious’ and self-determined motivation, using multiple regression analyses (Baron & Kenny, 1986). As we had an adequate sample size and normally distributed data, we used the Sobel test of mediation as it is recommended as having satisfactory power and an appropriate type I error rate (Baron & Kenny,
Table 2 Study1: Hierarchical regression analyses with all explicit measures, implicit social N studious identity, and implicit social N studious attitude as predictors of self-determined motivation. Factor
Predictor
Self-determined motivation Step 1 Academic self-efficacy Explicit studious identity Explicit social identity Step 2 Implicit social N studious identity Implicit social N studious attitude ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
Beta
R2
Change in R2
.37⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .07 −.13⁎ .004
.21
.21⁎⁎
.23
.02⁎
1986; Pituch, Whittaker, & Stapleton, 2005). Specifically, by including academic self-efficacy, the relationship between implicit attitude towards ‘studious’ versus ‘social’ and self-determined motivation was reduced from −.12 to − .08, Sobel's test = − 2.13, p = .03 (see Fig. 1). Similarly, by including academic self-efficacy, the relationship between explicit identity as ‘studious’ and self-determined motivation was reduced from .28 to .21, Sobel's test = 3.33, p = .00 (see Fig. 2).
3.2.4. Discussion The findings from Study 1 constitute the first test of implicit academic identity as ‘studious’ and ‘social’ and also demonstrate the incremental contributions of implicit measures beyond explicit measures in explaining self-determined motivation. We have established that implicit measures faithfully capture orientations towards scholarly and social pursuits and also predict students' explicit academic self-efficacy and motivational orientation. Thus, students who implicitly subscribe to a ‘social’ identity are more likely to implicitly endorse a positive evaluation of the social domain. This provides verification for the logic that thoughts, feelings, and attitudes maintain consistency within a domain's network of implicit and explicit associations. Our findings also suggest that it is important to assess both implicit and explicit identities as each provides unique information about different aspects of the self. Further, implicit social identity and explicit social identity were positively correlated as were implicit social identity and attitude, and implicit social identity was a significant predictor of self-determined motivation. For example, students who had a strong implicit social identity also reported a stronger explicit social identity. Similarly students who implicitly identified as being more ‘social’ than ‘studious’ also valued social pursuits more than scholarly activities. Further, although the associations were weak to moderate in strength, the results suggest that students who had a more implicit social orientation with greater investments in their interpersonal and group activities also reported less self-determined motivation (i.e. they were less intrinsically motivated) indicating that they were more likely to respond to external rewards and punishments from the environment. Students implicitly evaluating social pursuits more positively than scholarly pursuits reported lower academic self-efficacy suggesting that they were less confident in the academic domain. In contrast, students who implicitly and explicitly identified as being more ‘studious’ were also more likely to be selfassured in their academic competency and reported being more selfdetermined or intrinsically interested in schoolwork and motivated by a love of learning. Educators might find it interesting and useful to know that even though students' explicit identification as being studious and feeling greater academic self-efficacy predicted a significant amount of variance in self-determination, implicit identity predicted a unique amount of incremental variance, even though it was by a small amount. Practically speaking, it may be helpful to consider the value of recognizing the potential importance of implicit cognitions in the academic context.
M. Komarraju, C. Dial / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 1–8
5
Academic Self-Efficacy
.44
-.12
Implicit Attitude (‘Social’ Is Good)
Self-Determined Motivation
-.12 (reduced to -.08 with mediator) Fig. 1. Implicit attitude (‘social’ is good) and self-determined motivation partially mediated by academic self-efficacy.
Thus, these findings are unique to this study and highlight the importance of recognizing how students' automatically activated implicit cognitions might influence their feelings of competence and motivation. These results support previous work attesting to the unique contribution of implicit measures as in the instance of implicit conscientiousness predicting incremental variance in academic achievement beyond that explained by explicit measures (Vianello, Robusto, & Anselmi, 2010). Although a majority of work in this area has examined explicit identity and attitudes, our results signal the need to build on this work by further exploring implicit identity and attitudes. Further, our understanding of the relationship among implicit identity, attitudes and self-determined motivation is enhanced by results supporting the mediating role of academic self-efficacy. Being confident in one's ability to employ study strategies and learn effectively appears to be a critical ingredient for feeling motivated and energized at school. This implies that students who implicitly value social pursuits over scholarly activities feel less self-motivated partly because they lack self-efficacy or confidence and have self-doubts about their skill and ability to succeed at school. This raises the possibility that helping students develop an implicit scholarly orientation and strengthening their self-efficacy might help increase their level of self-determined motivation. College administrators, academic advisors, and instructors could provide resources and strategies for building students' selfefficacy such as opportunities for experiencing success, encouragement, positive role models, and learning how to manage performance anxiety.
4. Study 2 4.1. Method 4.1.1. Participants Respondents included 128 undergraduate students who participated for course credit. The mean age was 19 years, 56% were men, 57% were European American, 25% were African American, and 14% were other; 72% were freshmen, 13% were sophomores, 10% were juniors and 5% were seniors.
4.1.2. Measures 4.1.2.1. Implicit academic identity and implicit self-esteem. The two implicit measures included one IAT assessing identity that involved discrimination between two target categories: Studious (library, reading, research, taking notes) and Social (fraternity, partying, movies, hanging out). We tested the strength of association between these target categories and two attribute categories: Me (I, mine, my, self) and Not Me (them, they, theirs, other). A second IAT, assessing attitude or self-esteem, involved discrimination between two target categories: Good (win, peace, heaven, cheer, amazing, love), and Bad (enemy, pain, stink, vomit, fear, wrong). We tested the strength of association between these target categories and same two attribute categories: (Me and Not Me).
Academic Self-Efficacy
.18
.44
Explicit ‘Studious’ Identity
Self-Determined Motivation
.28 (reduced to .21 with mediator) Fig. 2. Explicit ‘studious’ identity and self-determined motivation partially mediated by academic self-efficacy.
6
M. Komarraju, C. Dial / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 1–8
The first IAT identity test was the same as in Study 1, and the two critical conditions involved four categories of words: Studious, Social, Me, and Not me. For the second IAT test which assessed selfevaluation or self-esteem, the four categories were Me, Not me, Good, and Bad. As in Study 1, the conditions were presented in an intermixed order and we analyzed participants' response latencies to the IAT tasks based on the assumption that responses would be faster when the target categories were paired with attributes that had stronger associations (Lane, Banaji, Nosek, & Greenwald, 2007). For example, an individual who had a strong identification with the academic aspects of college would respond more quickly when Studious + Me stimuli were paired than when Studious + Not Me stimuli were paired. Similarly, a student with higher self-esteem would respond faster when Good + Me stimuli were paired than when Good + Not Me stimuli were paired. 4.1.2.2. Explicit academic identity. This was assessed by asking participants to select one item from a set of seven that ranged from, I am a far more social than studious person to I am a far more studious than social person. 4.1.2.3. Explicit self-esteem. The Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) consisted of 10 items and used a five-point, Likert-type rating scale ranging from 1 = strong disagree to 5 = strongly agree (sample item, “I feel that I have a number of good qualities”); for this study, the internal consistency Cronbach's alpha value was .85. 4.1.2.4. Explicit goal orientation. Drawing from Dweck and Leggett's (1988) scale, we used a single item to measure each goal orientation; performance goals (Although I hate to admit it, I sometimes would rather do well in a class than learn a lot) and learning goals (It's much more important for me to learn things in my classes than it is to get the best grades), and each of these was rated on a six-point, Likert-type scale ranging from1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. 4.1.3. Procedure Participants were tested individually; after responding to two IAT tests on the computer, each participant completed a paper and pencil survey including explicit self-report measures of identity, self-esteem, learning and performance goal orientations. 4.2. Results and discussion 4.2.1. Correlation analyses Students who implicitly identified with ‘social’ rather than ‘scholarly’ pursuits also expressed a stronger explicit identity as ‘social’ (r = .33), a stronger preference for performance goals (r = .29), and weaker preference for learning goals (r = −.23) (see Table 3). Similarly, students with a stronger explicit social identity were more likely to pursue performance goals (r = .29). Regarding self-esteem, students with stronger implicit self-esteem showed no preference for performance goals and
a stronger preference for learning goals (r = .25); and students who reported a stronger explicit self-esteem were less likely to pursue performance goals (r = −.18). 4.2.2. Regression analyses To test whether implicit measures of identity and self-esteem predicted incremental variance in performance goals, beyond explicit measures of identity and self-esteem, we used hierarchical regression analyses and first entered the explicit measures of identity (studious, social) and explicit self-esteem in step 1, and these predicted a significant amount (10%) of the variance in performance goals, F (2, 119) = 6.86, p = .00 (see Table 4). Next, in step 2, we entered the implicit measures of identity (studious, social) and self-esteem, and these explained another 5% of incremental variance in performance goals that was significant, F (2, 117) = 3.04, p = .05. These analyses indicated that students who expressed a more social rather than scholarly identity, both at the explicit and at the implicit level, preferred performance goals. Next, we used hierarchical regression analyses to test whether implicit measures predicted incremental variance in learning goals, beyond explicit measures. First, we entered the explicit measures of identity (studious, social) and explicit self-esteem in step 1, and these explained variance (3%) in learning goals and this was not statistically significant, F (2, 119) = 1.64, p = .19 (see Table 5). Next, in step 2, we entered the implicit measures of identity and self-esteem and these explained an additional 10% of incremental variance in learning goals that was significant, F (2, 117) = 7.19, p = .00. These results indicate that only the implicit measures succeeded in detecting that students with a more social identity show a weaker preference for learning goals and those with stronger implicit self-esteem prefer learning goals. 4.2.3. Discussion Results from Study 2 illuminated the relationship between explicit and implicit identity, as well as implicit and explicit self-esteem, with regard to goal orientation and established the sensitivity of implicit measures in assessing a preference for learning goal orientation. Although the correlations were weak to moderate, students who explicitly and implicitly identified as being more social (rather than studious) clearly preferred performance goals. In contrast, students who implicitly identified as being more studious (rather than social) and also expressed higher implicit self-esteem preferred learning goals. Thus, students who show a preference for social pursuits such as spending time with peers and friends are more likely to focus on performance goals. However, students who implicitly think of themselves as being more studious and hold themselves in high regard seem to be motivated to maximize their learning. Their focus appears to be on mastery of material, rather than achieving the highest grade. It is interesting that the results for performance goals were supported by both explicit and implicit measures, but for learning goals, only the implicit measures were significant predictors. In addition, for both performance and learning goals, implicit measures predicted significant
Table 3 Study 2: Correlation analyses between the implicit and explicit measures of identity and self-esteem, performance goals and learning goals. Variable
Implicit social N studious identity
Implicit self-esteem me + good
Explicit social N studious identity
Implicit social N studious identity Implicit self-esteem me + good Explicit social N studious identity Explicit self-esteem Performance goal Learning goal Mean SD
– −.13 .33⁎⁎ −.03 .29⁎⁎ −.23⁎⁎
– −.16 .07 −.07 .25⁎⁎
– −.09 .29⁎⁎
.02 .30
−.39 .34
⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
−.07 .07 1.38
Explicit self-esteem
– −.18⁎ .14 4.06 .62
Performance goals
– −.30⁎⁎ 4.15 1.24
Learning goals
– 3.02 1.08
M. Komarraju, C. Dial / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 1–8 Table 4 Study 2: Hierarchical regression analyses with explicit social N studious identity, selfesteem and implicit social N studious identity, self-esteem as predictors of performance goal orientation. Factor
Predictor
Performance goal Step 1 Explicit social N studious Explicit self-esteem Step 2 Implicit social N studious Implicit self-esteem
Beta
R2
Change in R2
.26⁎⁎ −.16 .23⁎ .03
.10
.10⁎⁎
.15
.05⁎
⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
7
baseline measures at college entry and track students' actual performance across the college years. Findings from such studies are likely to help identify critical predictors of academic outcomes and demonstrate the relative strength of implicit and explicit identity in shaping life goals, both scholarly and social. Such research could vastly improve our efforts to understand and improve student motivation and goal pursuit. Instructors, educators, academic advisors, and college administrators could apply these findings in strengthening students' academic identity, self-efficacy, and self-esteem, so that they remain motivated and focused on goal attainment during their college years. Acknowledgment
incremental variance beyond explicit measures indicating the greater sensitivity of implicit measures in detecting identity-motivation interrelationships. It appears that implicit measures capture an aspect of students' academic identity that is unique and not reflected in explicit self-report measures. This greater sensitivity of implicit measures is particularly true when it comes to learning goals as both implicit academic identity (more studious than social) and implicit self-esteem suggest a stronger association with the motivation to learn and master challenging material. These results suggest that although students may be reluctant to explicitly state their preference for learning goals, those who implicitly adhere to a scholarly identity and have higher self-esteem prefer mastery/learning goals. Educators could address these implicit orientations by emphasizing, encouraging, and rewarding adherence to learning goals so that students feel more comfortable in acknowledging and pursuing learning goals. Perhaps this might also help make sense of the negative direction of the correlation between explicit self-esteem and performance goals which suggests that students who consciously hold themselves in high regard show less preference for focusing on good grades only. Although the direction of causality between identity and motivation cannot be ascertained in these cross-sectional data, this is the first evidence that college students with a social versus scholarly identity have a stronger preference for performance goals, students with stronger implicit self-esteem and an implicit scholarly identity prefer learning goals, and implicit measures capture unique aspects of academic identity. 5. Limitations, future directions, and conclusions Taken together, the results of our studies establish the importance of examining both implicit and explicit academic identities as well as academic self-efficacy in predicting college students' self-determined motivation and goal orientation. However, we also acknowledge some limitations. Because we utilized a cross-sectional design, we cannot draw conclusions of causality; as our samples included a majority of freshmen, we are cautious in generalizing our findings to upper classmen; and as we used some single-item measures in Study 2, we recommend lengthier measures in future work. Further, although the majority of the research in this area is correlational in nature and makes causal inferences inappropriate, future researchers could conduct longitudinal studies that follow college cohorts starting with Table 5 Study 2: Hierarchical regression analyses with explicit social N studious identity, selfesteem and implicit social N studious identity, self-esteem as predictors of learning goal orientation. Factor
Predictor
Learning goal Step 1 Explicit social N studious Explicit self-esteem Step 2 Implicit social N studious Implicit self-esteem ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
Beta
R2
Change in R2
−.08 .13 −.22⁎ .24⁎⁎
.03
.03
.13
.10⁎⁎
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Professor Mahzarin Banaji and her Social Cognition Research Lab, Department of Psychology, Harvard University, in conducting our research studies and preparing our manuscript. References Asendorpf, J., Banse, R., & Mücke, D. (2002). Double dissociation between implicit and explicit personality self-concept: The case of shy behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 380–393. Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). The development of implicit attitudes: Evidence of race evaluations from age 6 and 10 and adulthood. Psychological Science, 17, 53–58. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1–44. Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. K. (2003). Level of self-esteem and contingencies of self-worth: Unique effects on academic, social, and financial problems in college students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 701–712. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–347. Devos, T., & Cruz Torres, J. A. (2007). Implicit identification with academic achievement among Latino college students: The role of ethnic identity and significant others. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 293–310. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goal: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual review of psychology, 54(1), 297–327. Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 229–238. Fiedler, K., Messner, C., & Bluemke, M. (2006). Unresolved problems with the “I”, the “A”, and the “T”: A logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 74–147. Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellot, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and selfconcept. Psychological Review, 109, 3–25. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. Greenwald, A. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2001). Health of the Implicit Association Test at age 3. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 85–93. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216. Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17–41. Lane, K. A., Banaji, M. R., Nosek, B. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2007). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: IV. What we know (so far) about the method. In B. Wittenbrink, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes: Procedures and controversies (pp. 59–102). New York: Guilford Press. Law, W., Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2012). Perceived competence moderates the relation between performance–approach and performance–avoidance goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 806–819. Levesque, C., Copeland, K. J., & Sutcliffe, R. A. (2008). Conscious and nonconscious processes: Implications for self-determination theory. Canadian Psychology, 49, 218–224. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59.
8
M. Komarraju, C. Dial / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 1–8
Nosek, B. A., & Smyth, F. L. (2011). Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math engagement and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1125–1156. Ommundsen, Y., Haugen, R., & Lund, T. (2005). Academic self-concept, implicit theories of ability, and self-regulation strategies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49, 461–474. Oyserman, D. (2012). Not just any path: Implications of identity-based motivation for disparities in school outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 33, 179–190. Oyserman, D., & Destin, M. (2010). Identity-based motivation: Implications for intervention. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 1001–1043. Oyserman, D., & James, L. (2011). Possible identities. Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 117–145). New York: Springer. Pituch, K. A., Whittaker, T. A., & Stapleton, L. M. (2005). A comparison of methods to test for mediation in multisite experiments. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(1), 1–23. Reynolds, W. M. (1988). Measurement of academic self-concept in college students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 223–240. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rudman, L. A. (2004). Sources of implicit attitudes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 79–82. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74, 1557–1585. Sergio, R., Cuestas, P. J., & Fenollar, P. (2008). An examination of the interrelationships between self‐esteem, others' expectations, family support, learning approaches and academic achievement, Studies in Higher Education, 33, 127–138.
Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012). Unseen disadvantage: How American universities' focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1178–1197. Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 255–270. Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Deci and Ryan's self-determination theory: A view from the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 312–318. Vallerand, R. J. (2011). Personal Communication. Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599–620. Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F. (1992). The Academic Motivation Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003–1017. Vianello, M., Robusto, E., & Anselmi, P. (2010). Implicit conscientiousness predicts academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 452–457. Wigfield, A., & Wagner, A. L. (2005). Competence, motivation, and identity development during adolescence. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 222–229). New York, N. Y. The Guilford Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif
Academic identity, self-efficacy, and self-esteem predict self-determined motivation and goals Meera Komarraju a,⁎, Christopher Dial b a b
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, United States Harvard University, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 4 July 2013 Received in revised form 8 January 2014 Accepted 21 February 2014 Available online xxxx Keywords: Self-efficacy Identity Self-determined motivation Goals IAT
a b s t r a c t We conducted the first tests of implicit academic identity (social versus studious) in relation to explicit academic identity (social versus studious), self-efficacy and self-esteem as predictors of self-determined motivation and goals (performance and learning). In Study 1, 366 undergraduates completed measures of implicit social/studious identity and implicit attitude towards social/studious domains along with explicit social/studious identity, academic self-efficacy, and self-determined motivation. In Study 2, 128 undergraduates completed implicit measures of social/studious identity, implicit self-esteem, and explicit measures of self-esteem, and goals (performance and learning). Our results offer the first evidence of significant correspondence between implicit and explicit academic identity and the unique, incremental contributions of implicit measures beyond explicit measures in explaining self-determined motivation and goal orientation. We also establish that socially oriented students have lower academic self-efficacy, lower self-determined motivation, and a preference for performance goals; studiously oriented students report higher self-esteem and a preference for learning goals. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction College years offer a time to forge new identities. Although there are many dimensions along which students can shape their central identity, we examined two identities that may be particularly salient for motivation and goal striving: 1) ‘scholars’ invested in academic work and 2) ‘socializers’ invested in interpersonal and group socializing. Do these identities influence students' self-efficacy, self-esteem and motivation? Do students who identify more strongly as ‘scholars’ have different goals and motivations than do ‘socializers’? We attempted to answer these questions by examining college students' implicit and explicit identities as ‘scholars’ or ‘socializers’ in relation to academic self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-determined motivation and goals (performance and learning). 2. Relevant prior research 2.1. Implicit and explicit academic identity Implicit identities are typically hidden from conscious awareness, expressed more automatically, and are less susceptible to influences exerted by impression management or social desirability (Baron & Banaji, 2006). In contrast, explicit identities tend to be within conscious ⁎ Corresponding author at: College of Liberal Arts, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-6502, United States. Tel.: +1 618 453 3543; fax: +1 618 453 3563. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Komarraju).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.02.004 1041-6080/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
awareness and likely to be expressed more deliberately. Similarly, implicit attitudes shaped by preverbal emotional experiences and established early in life tend to be accurate predictors of longer term behavioral patterns, whereas explicit attitudes are shaped largely by cognitive content and cultural norms and are better at predicting specific behaviors in immediate contexts (Baron & Banaji, 2006; Rudman, 2004). For instance, it has been found that implicit responses, as measured by the Implicit Associations Test (IAT), predict natural or spontaneous behavior and explicit self-report ratings predict behavior that is more deliberate or controlled (Asendorpf, Banse, & Mücke, 2002). Although implicit attitudes are moderately correlated with explicit attitudes (Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002), some researchers consider them to be more independent and dissociated (Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986). Research findings regarding the relative strength of implicit and explicit measures in predicting behavior remain inconsistent and less is known about how and when they come together or diverge in predicting behavior. Hence, we investigated the relative contributions of implicit and explicit academic preferences as predictors of students' self-determined motivation and goal orientation. 2.2. Academic identity and motivation Research regarding identity-based motivation and the influential role of possible selves (Oyserman & James, 2011; Oyserman, 2012; Oyserman & Destin, 2010) suggests that academic identities can be motivating when an aspirational self feels relevant in the academic classroom and when individuals experience environments that match their
2
M. Komarraju, C. Dial / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 1–8
sense of self. For instance, when individuals believe their identity and actions are congruent they tend to persist longer at a challenging task because they find it to be meaningful and significant (Oyserman & Destin, 2010). On the other hand, if individuals are performing actions that they believe are incongruent with their identity they are more likely to give up when they encounter difficulties. Thus, identity congruence has the potential to influence students' academic choices (such as attending class) or behaviors (asking questions in class, or studying for a test). For example, Oyserman and Destin (2010) reported that although almost 90% of students from urban schools in low-income areas see themselves as being college educated, they do not have an educationdependent identity or a context that evokes such an identity; hence, they are less likely to pursue a college education. Similarly, Devos and Cruz Torres (2007) found that Latino students tend to implicitly selfidentify as low achievers when they have strong identification with their ethnic group and associate it with low-achieving stereotypes. In contrast, Latino students implicitly identify as high achievers if they have strong identification with significant others who are viewed as high achievers. Thus, for Latino students, identification with academic endeavors is predicted by a function of their ethnic identity and the academic achievement of significant others. The motivating influence of academic identity is also apparent in results showing that first generation college students obtain better grades after experiencing a match between their sense of self (independent or interdependent) and the university's culture (which is more independent), even after controlling for SAT scores and race (Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012). Likewise, the negative consequences of identity mismatches are evident when women who implicitly associate math more strongly with men show a weaker preference for math, less identification with it, less skill, less engagement and more anxiety in math-related activities (Nosek & Smyth, 2011). Fortunately, implicit identity appears to be malleable, as women who come into contact with a role model with whom they can identify, feel more confident and efficacious, show increased class participation, seek help from instructors after class, and report more awareness of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) careers (Stout, Dasgupta, Hunsinger, & McManus, 2011). Thus, implicit identity measures appear to capture and reflect subtle and complex aspects of the self such as influences from early experiences and messages received from family, teachers, or peers and these seem to have motivating influences. 2.3. Self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-determined motivation, and goals In addition to the motivational influence of academic identity, researchers have also examined academic self-efficacy (academic selfconfidence) and self-esteem (self-worth) in relation to academic motivation assessed as self-determined motivation and goals (performance and mastery). Although there is evidence of a robust relationship between self-efficacy and achievement, we need a more thorough understanding of the proximal mechanisms that explain how and why self-efficacy influences the motivation to pursue academic goals (Zimmerman, 2000). Selfdetermination theory explains how and why individuals may differ in their academic motivation as it views motivation as a continuum with high intrinsic motivation and amotivation on both ends and extrinsic motivation located in the middle (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to this theory, by satisfying three innate needs that include feeling competent by successfully meeting challenges, feeling autonomous from having choices, and feeling connected to others in caring relationships, individuals experience a stronger sense of self-determination, ‘agency,’ and greater intrinsic motivation (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Self-determination theory's basic theoretical constructs are operationalized by the Academic Motivation Scale, and empirical evidence suggests that students who feel more competent (high academic self-efficacy) tend to experience greater self-determined motivation and show greater persistence; in contrast, amotivated students have the least self-determination and are more apathetic and
disengaged (Vallerand, 2000; Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992; Vallerand et al., 1992). High academic self-efficacy and implicit beliefs about the changeable/malleable quality of intelligence are associated with stronger motivation, greater concentration, and deeper processing of study material (Ommundsen, Haugen, & Lund, 2005). Individuals who internalize achievement goals display greater self-regulation and self-directed behaviors that are associated with enhanced learning and performance (Ryan & Deci, 2006). Further, priming individuals with relevant implicit intrinsic and extrinsic cues has been found to influence motivation for performance behaviors (Levesque, Copeland, & Sutcliffe, 2008). Regarding self-esteem and motivation, although there is some confirmation that a positive academic identity develops from prior successful academic experiences, there is an ongoing debate about the reciprocity of this relationship as evidence also exists in support of a positive selfconcept leading to successful experiences (Wigfield & Wagner, 2005). Further, good performance in school has been shown to lead to higher self-esteem, whereas self-esteem has shown no impact on academic achievement suggesting that some aspects of this relationship are still unclear (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). In addition, self-esteem along with family support appears to be important for learning and achievement (Sergio, Cuestas, & Fenollar, 2008) and others hint at an indirect relationship between self-esteem and emotional/social problems which may lead to attrition (Crocker & Luhtanen, 2003). Thus, the relationship between self-esteem and motivation remains riddled with questions that need to be answered more completely. Research regarding sense of self and motivation measured via academic goals suggests that students are motivated by different cues within the same environment (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). For instance, individuals who feel competent (high self-efficacy) are driven by performance–approach goals and those who feel less competent and worry that they will perform poorly are driven by performance–avoidance goals (Law, Elliot, & Murayama, 2012). Likewise, students pursuing performance goals tend to believe that those who have high ability do not need to work hard and having to work hard implies that a student is not very gifted. In contrast, students pursuing learning goals feel motivated to put forth effort and view this as a path for manifesting their ability (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Consequently, learning more about the complex way in which academic identity, academic self-efficacy, and self-esteem are related to self-determined motivation and goals (learning and performance) would be valuable for educators as they seek to improve student motivation. 2.4. Current studies In Study 1, our aim was to understand the nature and role of students' academic identity, attitude towards scholarly pursuits, and selfefficacy in predicting self-determined motivation. To achieve this, we performed the first tests of ‘studious’ versus ‘social’ academic identity using both implicit (automatic) and explicit (conscious) measures of identity and attitude in relation to self-determined motivation. Next, in Study 2, we built on the first study by including implicit and explicit measures of self-esteem along with implicit and explicit academic identity and also sought a deeper understanding of the relationship between academic identity and academic motivation by using a measure of goal orientation (performance and learning). Common to both studies, we examined implicit and explicit identity as the predictors and motivation as the outcome. We assessed implicit preferences and attitudes by using the Implicit Associations Test (IAT), a popular and widely used method for measuring the strength of implicit associations (Devos & Cruz Torres, 2007; Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009; Nosek et al., 2002). The IAT operates on the assumption that it is effective in accessing information that is activated automatically or involuntarily and is less vulnerable to attempts at faking, impression management, or self-deception. Comprehensive reviews evaluating implicit measures including the IAT (Fazio & Olson; 2003; Fiedler, Messner, & Bluemke,
M. Komarraju, C. Dial / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 1–8
2006) acknowledge that implicit measures are useful alternatives to direct self-report measures; yet, they also note that the theory underlying these measures needs to be more fully developed, that the use of implicit measures for diagnostic purposes is less compelling, and that a more convincing case needs to be made regarding the automatic and nonconscious aspect of implicit cognitions. Even though the IAT has provoked a healthy debate, its psychometric properties have been established by evidence of test–retest consistency (Greenwald & Nosek, 2001), as well as predictive and convergent validity (Greenwald et al., 2009). Following the logic that an individual's associations regarding the self are intertwined within a network that is driven to maintain cognitive consistency (Greenwald et al., 2002), we hypothesized that in Study 1: 1. Students who implicitly identify as ‘studious’ rather than ‘social’ are more likely to implicitly evaluate the related domain of ‘studious’ rather than ‘social’, more positively. 2. Students who implicitly identify as ‘studious’ and show greater implicit preference for ‘studious’ are likely to report higher levels of academic self-efficacy. 3. Students who implicitly identify as ‘studious’ and show greater implicit preference for ‘studious’ are likely to report higher levels of self-determined motivation. Additionally, in Study 2, we hypothesized that: 1. Students who implicitly identify as ‘studious’ rather than ‘social’ are more likely to prefer learning goals. 2. Students who implicitly identify as ‘social’ rather than ‘studious’ are more likely to prefer performance goals. 3. Study 1 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Participants Respondents were 366 undergraduates who participated for course credit. The mean age was 19.38 years, 47% were men, majority were European American (56%) and African American (31%), 63.4% were freshmen, 17.2% were sophomores, and 8.5% were juniors and seniors. 3.1.2. Measures 3.1.2.1. Implicit academic identity and attitude. We created two Implicit Association Tests (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) for assessing implicit identity and implicit attitude involving discrimination between two target categories: Studious (library, reading, research, taking notes) and Social (fraternity, partying, movies, hanging out). We tested the association strength between these target categories and two sets of attribute categories. For identity, the attribute categories were: Me (I, mine, my, self) and Not Me (them, they, theirs, other). For attitude, the attribute categories were: Good (joy, honest, triumph, rainbow) and Bad (war, cancer, funeral, poison). For the IAT identity test, the four categories of words were studious, social, me, and not me; and for the IAT attitude test, they were studious, social, good, and bad. In condition one, participants categorized together ‘studious’ and ‘me’ by pressing one key and categorized together ‘social’ with ‘not-me’ by pressing another key. Then, in condition two, participants categorized together ‘social’ and ‘me’ by pressing one key and categorized together ‘studious’ and ‘not-me’ by pressing another key. The two conditions were presented in an inter-mixed order and we examined the response latencies in these tasks. For each IAT test, there were seven blocks of trials including three practice blocks and four blocks for data collection that included the critical conditions (Nosek et al., 2002). It was assumed that individuals would respond faster when the target categories were paired with attributes that are more strongly associated in memory. For example, an individual who strongly identifies with the academic aspects of college would respond more quickly when ‘studious + me’
3
stimuli were paired than when ‘social + me’ stimuli were paired. Similarly, if participants paired ‘social’ with ‘good’, the participant had an implicit attitude that is more positive towards social versus studious. To obtain an identity IAT score, we calculated the difference in the speed with which the participant responded to the ‘social + me’ and ‘studious + not me’ blocks versus ‘social + not me’ and ‘studious + me’ blocks expressed as an effect size or modified Cohen's d. Difference scores in the positive direction were interpreted as stronger implicit identity with ‘social’ over ‘studious’. To obtain an attitude IAT score, we calculated the difference in the speed with which the participant responded to the social + good | studious + bad blocks compared with social + bad | studious + good blocks expressed as an effect size or modified Cohen's d (Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003). Difference scores in the positive direction were interpreted as a stronger implicit preference for ‘social’ compared with ‘studious’. 3.1.2.2. Explicit academic identity. Explicit academic identity was measured by averaging across 4 items on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. For the ‘studious’ identity, the four items were, “In college, I am most myself when I am in the library, reading, working on research, or taking notes in a classroom,” and for the ‘social’ identity, the four items were, “In college, I am most myself when I am at a fraternity, partying, watching movies, or hanging out.” We created these items to match the words used in the IAT tests for the superordinate categories of ‘studious’ and ‘social’. The Cronbach's internal consistency values for this study were .82 for explicit studious identity and .68 for explicit social identity. 3.1.2.3. Academic self-efficacy: the Academic Self-Concept Scale. Academic self-efficacy: the Academic Self-Concept Scale (Reynolds, 1988) is a well established, psychometrically sound measure of academic self-efficacy that consists of 40 items assessing academic self-efficacy on a fourpoint Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree (sample item, “All in all, I feel I am a capable student”). The Cronbach's internal consistency alpha value for this study was .92. 3.1.2.4. Self-determined motivation: the Academic Motivation Scale. Selfdetermined motivation: the Academic Motivation Scale (Vallerand et al., 1992) consists of 28 items and is rated on a seven-point Likerttype scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. An index of self-determined motivation is a weighted score that includes the subscales of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation and is computed such that a higher score indicates stronger intrinsic or selfdetermined motivation (Vallerand, 2011, personal communication). In response to a question that asks participants why they attend college, participants rate their degree of agreement with items that represent intrinsic motivation (For the pleasure that I experience in broadening my knowledge about subjects which appeal to me), extrinsic motivation (In order to have a better salary later on), and amotivation or lack of motivation (Honestly, I don't know; I really feel that I am wasting my time in school). The internal consistency Cronbach's alpha values for the current study were .90 for intrinsic motivation, .88 for extrinsic motivation and .84 for amotivation. 3.1.3. Procedure Participants were tested individually and responded to two IAT tests assessing identity and attitude on the computer followed by a paper and pencil survey that included explicit measures assessing social and studious identity, academic self-efficacy, and self-determined motivation. 3.2. Results and discussion 3.2.1. Correlation analyses We found several interesting and meaningful patterns of relationships. For example, as shown in Table 1, students' implicit identity as ‘social’ rather than ‘studious’ was positively correlated with
4
M. Komarraju, C. Dial / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 1–8
Table 1 Study 1: Correlation analyses for implicit social identity, implicit attitude ‘social’ is good, academic self-efficacy, explicit studious identity, explicit social identity, and self-determined motivation. Variable
Implicit social N studious identity
Implicit social N studious attitude
Implicit social N studious identity Implicit social N studious attitude Academic self-efficacy Explicit studious identity Explicit social identity Self-determined motivation Mean SD
– .51⁎⁎ −.07 −.19⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ −.17⁎
– −.12⁎ −.23⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎ −.12⁎⁎
– .18⁎ −.03 .44⁎⁎
– −.12⁎ .28⁎
−.01 .32
−.02 .35
2.87 .39
3.84 1.31
Academic self-efficacy
Explicit studious identity
Explicit social identity
– .01 5.19 1.08
Self-determined motivation
–
⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
an implicit attitude that favored social pursuits rather than scholarly pursuits (r = .51) and was negatively correlated with explicit selfdetermined motivation (r = − .17). Further, students who implicitly evaluated the ‘social’ category more positively than the ‘studious’ category also reported lower explicit academic self-efficacy (r = −.12) and lower explicit self-determined motivation (r = −.12). 3.2.2. Regression analyses To test the relative contributions of implicit and explicit measures in predicting variance in self-determined motivation, we used hierarchical regression analyses (see Table 2). We first entered the explicit measures of identity (studious, social) and explicit academic self-efficacy in step 1, and together, these predicted a significant amount (21%) of the variance in self-determined motivation, F (3, 342) = 30.99, p = .00; academic self-efficacy and explicit studious identity were the two significant predictors. Next, in step 2, we entered the implicit measures of identity and attitude and together, these explained an additional 2% of incremental variance in self-determined motivation that was significant, F (2, 340) = 3.20, p = .04; the implicit identity measure emerged as the significant predictor. The negative beta weight for implicit identity indicates that a stronger identification with the ‘social’ category is associated with lower self-determined motivation. 3.2.3. Partial mediation To gain a more complete and thorough understanding of the complex link between our implicit and explicit measures and selfdetermined motivation, we examined academic self-efficacy as a potential mediator and found it to partially mediate the following relationships: a) between implicit attitude towards ‘studious’ versus ‘social’ categories and self-determined motivation, as well as b) the relationship between explicit identity as ‘studious’ and self-determined motivation, using multiple regression analyses (Baron & Kenny, 1986). As we had an adequate sample size and normally distributed data, we used the Sobel test of mediation as it is recommended as having satisfactory power and an appropriate type I error rate (Baron & Kenny,
Table 2 Study1: Hierarchical regression analyses with all explicit measures, implicit social N studious identity, and implicit social N studious attitude as predictors of self-determined motivation. Factor
Predictor
Self-determined motivation Step 1 Academic self-efficacy Explicit studious identity Explicit social identity Step 2 Implicit social N studious identity Implicit social N studious attitude ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
Beta
R2
Change in R2
.37⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .07 −.13⁎ .004
.21
.21⁎⁎
.23
.02⁎
1986; Pituch, Whittaker, & Stapleton, 2005). Specifically, by including academic self-efficacy, the relationship between implicit attitude towards ‘studious’ versus ‘social’ and self-determined motivation was reduced from −.12 to − .08, Sobel's test = − 2.13, p = .03 (see Fig. 1). Similarly, by including academic self-efficacy, the relationship between explicit identity as ‘studious’ and self-determined motivation was reduced from .28 to .21, Sobel's test = 3.33, p = .00 (see Fig. 2).
3.2.4. Discussion The findings from Study 1 constitute the first test of implicit academic identity as ‘studious’ and ‘social’ and also demonstrate the incremental contributions of implicit measures beyond explicit measures in explaining self-determined motivation. We have established that implicit measures faithfully capture orientations towards scholarly and social pursuits and also predict students' explicit academic self-efficacy and motivational orientation. Thus, students who implicitly subscribe to a ‘social’ identity are more likely to implicitly endorse a positive evaluation of the social domain. This provides verification for the logic that thoughts, feelings, and attitudes maintain consistency within a domain's network of implicit and explicit associations. Our findings also suggest that it is important to assess both implicit and explicit identities as each provides unique information about different aspects of the self. Further, implicit social identity and explicit social identity were positively correlated as were implicit social identity and attitude, and implicit social identity was a significant predictor of self-determined motivation. For example, students who had a strong implicit social identity also reported a stronger explicit social identity. Similarly students who implicitly identified as being more ‘social’ than ‘studious’ also valued social pursuits more than scholarly activities. Further, although the associations were weak to moderate in strength, the results suggest that students who had a more implicit social orientation with greater investments in their interpersonal and group activities also reported less self-determined motivation (i.e. they were less intrinsically motivated) indicating that they were more likely to respond to external rewards and punishments from the environment. Students implicitly evaluating social pursuits more positively than scholarly pursuits reported lower academic self-efficacy suggesting that they were less confident in the academic domain. In contrast, students who implicitly and explicitly identified as being more ‘studious’ were also more likely to be selfassured in their academic competency and reported being more selfdetermined or intrinsically interested in schoolwork and motivated by a love of learning. Educators might find it interesting and useful to know that even though students' explicit identification as being studious and feeling greater academic self-efficacy predicted a significant amount of variance in self-determination, implicit identity predicted a unique amount of incremental variance, even though it was by a small amount. Practically speaking, it may be helpful to consider the value of recognizing the potential importance of implicit cognitions in the academic context.
M. Komarraju, C. Dial / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 1–8
5
Academic Self-Efficacy
.44
-.12
Implicit Attitude (‘Social’ Is Good)
Self-Determined Motivation
-.12 (reduced to -.08 with mediator) Fig. 1. Implicit attitude (‘social’ is good) and self-determined motivation partially mediated by academic self-efficacy.
Thus, these findings are unique to this study and highlight the importance of recognizing how students' automatically activated implicit cognitions might influence their feelings of competence and motivation. These results support previous work attesting to the unique contribution of implicit measures as in the instance of implicit conscientiousness predicting incremental variance in academic achievement beyond that explained by explicit measures (Vianello, Robusto, & Anselmi, 2010). Although a majority of work in this area has examined explicit identity and attitudes, our results signal the need to build on this work by further exploring implicit identity and attitudes. Further, our understanding of the relationship among implicit identity, attitudes and self-determined motivation is enhanced by results supporting the mediating role of academic self-efficacy. Being confident in one's ability to employ study strategies and learn effectively appears to be a critical ingredient for feeling motivated and energized at school. This implies that students who implicitly value social pursuits over scholarly activities feel less self-motivated partly because they lack self-efficacy or confidence and have self-doubts about their skill and ability to succeed at school. This raises the possibility that helping students develop an implicit scholarly orientation and strengthening their self-efficacy might help increase their level of self-determined motivation. College administrators, academic advisors, and instructors could provide resources and strategies for building students' selfefficacy such as opportunities for experiencing success, encouragement, positive role models, and learning how to manage performance anxiety.
4. Study 2 4.1. Method 4.1.1. Participants Respondents included 128 undergraduate students who participated for course credit. The mean age was 19 years, 56% were men, 57% were European American, 25% were African American, and 14% were other; 72% were freshmen, 13% were sophomores, 10% were juniors and 5% were seniors.
4.1.2. Measures 4.1.2.1. Implicit academic identity and implicit self-esteem. The two implicit measures included one IAT assessing identity that involved discrimination between two target categories: Studious (library, reading, research, taking notes) and Social (fraternity, partying, movies, hanging out). We tested the strength of association between these target categories and two attribute categories: Me (I, mine, my, self) and Not Me (them, they, theirs, other). A second IAT, assessing attitude or self-esteem, involved discrimination between two target categories: Good (win, peace, heaven, cheer, amazing, love), and Bad (enemy, pain, stink, vomit, fear, wrong). We tested the strength of association between these target categories and same two attribute categories: (Me and Not Me).
Academic Self-Efficacy
.18
.44
Explicit ‘Studious’ Identity
Self-Determined Motivation
.28 (reduced to .21 with mediator) Fig. 2. Explicit ‘studious’ identity and self-determined motivation partially mediated by academic self-efficacy.
6
M. Komarraju, C. Dial / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 1–8
The first IAT identity test was the same as in Study 1, and the two critical conditions involved four categories of words: Studious, Social, Me, and Not me. For the second IAT test which assessed selfevaluation or self-esteem, the four categories were Me, Not me, Good, and Bad. As in Study 1, the conditions were presented in an intermixed order and we analyzed participants' response latencies to the IAT tasks based on the assumption that responses would be faster when the target categories were paired with attributes that had stronger associations (Lane, Banaji, Nosek, & Greenwald, 2007). For example, an individual who had a strong identification with the academic aspects of college would respond more quickly when Studious + Me stimuli were paired than when Studious + Not Me stimuli were paired. Similarly, a student with higher self-esteem would respond faster when Good + Me stimuli were paired than when Good + Not Me stimuli were paired. 4.1.2.2. Explicit academic identity. This was assessed by asking participants to select one item from a set of seven that ranged from, I am a far more social than studious person to I am a far more studious than social person. 4.1.2.3. Explicit self-esteem. The Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) consisted of 10 items and used a five-point, Likert-type rating scale ranging from 1 = strong disagree to 5 = strongly agree (sample item, “I feel that I have a number of good qualities”); for this study, the internal consistency Cronbach's alpha value was .85. 4.1.2.4. Explicit goal orientation. Drawing from Dweck and Leggett's (1988) scale, we used a single item to measure each goal orientation; performance goals (Although I hate to admit it, I sometimes would rather do well in a class than learn a lot) and learning goals (It's much more important for me to learn things in my classes than it is to get the best grades), and each of these was rated on a six-point, Likert-type scale ranging from1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. 4.1.3. Procedure Participants were tested individually; after responding to two IAT tests on the computer, each participant completed a paper and pencil survey including explicit self-report measures of identity, self-esteem, learning and performance goal orientations. 4.2. Results and discussion 4.2.1. Correlation analyses Students who implicitly identified with ‘social’ rather than ‘scholarly’ pursuits also expressed a stronger explicit identity as ‘social’ (r = .33), a stronger preference for performance goals (r = .29), and weaker preference for learning goals (r = −.23) (see Table 3). Similarly, students with a stronger explicit social identity were more likely to pursue performance goals (r = .29). Regarding self-esteem, students with stronger implicit self-esteem showed no preference for performance goals and
a stronger preference for learning goals (r = .25); and students who reported a stronger explicit self-esteem were less likely to pursue performance goals (r = −.18). 4.2.2. Regression analyses To test whether implicit measures of identity and self-esteem predicted incremental variance in performance goals, beyond explicit measures of identity and self-esteem, we used hierarchical regression analyses and first entered the explicit measures of identity (studious, social) and explicit self-esteem in step 1, and these predicted a significant amount (10%) of the variance in performance goals, F (2, 119) = 6.86, p = .00 (see Table 4). Next, in step 2, we entered the implicit measures of identity (studious, social) and self-esteem, and these explained another 5% of incremental variance in performance goals that was significant, F (2, 117) = 3.04, p = .05. These analyses indicated that students who expressed a more social rather than scholarly identity, both at the explicit and at the implicit level, preferred performance goals. Next, we used hierarchical regression analyses to test whether implicit measures predicted incremental variance in learning goals, beyond explicit measures. First, we entered the explicit measures of identity (studious, social) and explicit self-esteem in step 1, and these explained variance (3%) in learning goals and this was not statistically significant, F (2, 119) = 1.64, p = .19 (see Table 5). Next, in step 2, we entered the implicit measures of identity and self-esteem and these explained an additional 10% of incremental variance in learning goals that was significant, F (2, 117) = 7.19, p = .00. These results indicate that only the implicit measures succeeded in detecting that students with a more social identity show a weaker preference for learning goals and those with stronger implicit self-esteem prefer learning goals. 4.2.3. Discussion Results from Study 2 illuminated the relationship between explicit and implicit identity, as well as implicit and explicit self-esteem, with regard to goal orientation and established the sensitivity of implicit measures in assessing a preference for learning goal orientation. Although the correlations were weak to moderate, students who explicitly and implicitly identified as being more social (rather than studious) clearly preferred performance goals. In contrast, students who implicitly identified as being more studious (rather than social) and also expressed higher implicit self-esteem preferred learning goals. Thus, students who show a preference for social pursuits such as spending time with peers and friends are more likely to focus on performance goals. However, students who implicitly think of themselves as being more studious and hold themselves in high regard seem to be motivated to maximize their learning. Their focus appears to be on mastery of material, rather than achieving the highest grade. It is interesting that the results for performance goals were supported by both explicit and implicit measures, but for learning goals, only the implicit measures were significant predictors. In addition, for both performance and learning goals, implicit measures predicted significant
Table 3 Study 2: Correlation analyses between the implicit and explicit measures of identity and self-esteem, performance goals and learning goals. Variable
Implicit social N studious identity
Implicit self-esteem me + good
Explicit social N studious identity
Implicit social N studious identity Implicit self-esteem me + good Explicit social N studious identity Explicit self-esteem Performance goal Learning goal Mean SD
– −.13 .33⁎⁎ −.03 .29⁎⁎ −.23⁎⁎
– −.16 .07 −.07 .25⁎⁎
– −.09 .29⁎⁎
.02 .30
−.39 .34
⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
−.07 .07 1.38
Explicit self-esteem
– −.18⁎ .14 4.06 .62
Performance goals
– −.30⁎⁎ 4.15 1.24
Learning goals
– 3.02 1.08
M. Komarraju, C. Dial / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 1–8 Table 4 Study 2: Hierarchical regression analyses with explicit social N studious identity, selfesteem and implicit social N studious identity, self-esteem as predictors of performance goal orientation. Factor
Predictor
Performance goal Step 1 Explicit social N studious Explicit self-esteem Step 2 Implicit social N studious Implicit self-esteem
Beta
R2
Change in R2
.26⁎⁎ −.16 .23⁎ .03
.10
.10⁎⁎
.15
.05⁎
⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
7
baseline measures at college entry and track students' actual performance across the college years. Findings from such studies are likely to help identify critical predictors of academic outcomes and demonstrate the relative strength of implicit and explicit identity in shaping life goals, both scholarly and social. Such research could vastly improve our efforts to understand and improve student motivation and goal pursuit. Instructors, educators, academic advisors, and college administrators could apply these findings in strengthening students' academic identity, self-efficacy, and self-esteem, so that they remain motivated and focused on goal attainment during their college years. Acknowledgment
incremental variance beyond explicit measures indicating the greater sensitivity of implicit measures in detecting identity-motivation interrelationships. It appears that implicit measures capture an aspect of students' academic identity that is unique and not reflected in explicit self-report measures. This greater sensitivity of implicit measures is particularly true when it comes to learning goals as both implicit academic identity (more studious than social) and implicit self-esteem suggest a stronger association with the motivation to learn and master challenging material. These results suggest that although students may be reluctant to explicitly state their preference for learning goals, those who implicitly adhere to a scholarly identity and have higher self-esteem prefer mastery/learning goals. Educators could address these implicit orientations by emphasizing, encouraging, and rewarding adherence to learning goals so that students feel more comfortable in acknowledging and pursuing learning goals. Perhaps this might also help make sense of the negative direction of the correlation between explicit self-esteem and performance goals which suggests that students who consciously hold themselves in high regard show less preference for focusing on good grades only. Although the direction of causality between identity and motivation cannot be ascertained in these cross-sectional data, this is the first evidence that college students with a social versus scholarly identity have a stronger preference for performance goals, students with stronger implicit self-esteem and an implicit scholarly identity prefer learning goals, and implicit measures capture unique aspects of academic identity. 5. Limitations, future directions, and conclusions Taken together, the results of our studies establish the importance of examining both implicit and explicit academic identities as well as academic self-efficacy in predicting college students' self-determined motivation and goal orientation. However, we also acknowledge some limitations. Because we utilized a cross-sectional design, we cannot draw conclusions of causality; as our samples included a majority of freshmen, we are cautious in generalizing our findings to upper classmen; and as we used some single-item measures in Study 2, we recommend lengthier measures in future work. Further, although the majority of the research in this area is correlational in nature and makes causal inferences inappropriate, future researchers could conduct longitudinal studies that follow college cohorts starting with Table 5 Study 2: Hierarchical regression analyses with explicit social N studious identity, selfesteem and implicit social N studious identity, self-esteem as predictors of learning goal orientation. Factor
Predictor
Learning goal Step 1 Explicit social N studious Explicit self-esteem Step 2 Implicit social N studious Implicit self-esteem ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.
Beta
R2
Change in R2
−.08 .13 −.22⁎ .24⁎⁎
.03
.03
.13
.10⁎⁎
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Professor Mahzarin Banaji and her Social Cognition Research Lab, Department of Psychology, Harvard University, in conducting our research studies and preparing our manuscript. References Asendorpf, J., Banse, R., & Mücke, D. (2002). Double dissociation between implicit and explicit personality self-concept: The case of shy behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 380–393. Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). The development of implicit attitudes: Evidence of race evaluations from age 6 and 10 and adulthood. Psychological Science, 17, 53–58. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1–44. Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. K. (2003). Level of self-esteem and contingencies of self-worth: Unique effects on academic, social, and financial problems in college students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 701–712. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–347. Devos, T., & Cruz Torres, J. A. (2007). Implicit identification with academic achievement among Latino college students: The role of ethnic identity and significant others. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 293–310. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goal: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual review of psychology, 54(1), 297–327. Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 229–238. Fiedler, K., Messner, C., & Bluemke, M. (2006). Unresolved problems with the “I”, the “A”, and the “T”: A logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 74–147. Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellot, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and selfconcept. Psychological Review, 109, 3–25. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. Greenwald, A. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2001). Health of the Implicit Association Test at age 3. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 85–93. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216. Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17–41. Lane, K. A., Banaji, M. R., Nosek, B. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2007). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: IV. What we know (so far) about the method. In B. Wittenbrink, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes: Procedures and controversies (pp. 59–102). New York: Guilford Press. Law, W., Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2012). Perceived competence moderates the relation between performance–approach and performance–avoidance goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 806–819. Levesque, C., Copeland, K. J., & Sutcliffe, R. A. (2008). Conscious and nonconscious processes: Implications for self-determination theory. Canadian Psychology, 49, 218–224. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59.
8
M. Komarraju, C. Dial / Learning and Individual Differences 32 (2014) 1–8
Nosek, B. A., & Smyth, F. L. (2011). Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math engagement and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1125–1156. Ommundsen, Y., Haugen, R., & Lund, T. (2005). Academic self-concept, implicit theories of ability, and self-regulation strategies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49, 461–474. Oyserman, D. (2012). Not just any path: Implications of identity-based motivation for disparities in school outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 33, 179–190. Oyserman, D., & Destin, M. (2010). Identity-based motivation: Implications for intervention. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 1001–1043. Oyserman, D., & James, L. (2011). Possible identities. Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 117–145). New York: Springer. Pituch, K. A., Whittaker, T. A., & Stapleton, L. M. (2005). A comparison of methods to test for mediation in multisite experiments. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(1), 1–23. Reynolds, W. M. (1988). Measurement of academic self-concept in college students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 223–240. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rudman, L. A. (2004). Sources of implicit attitudes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 79–82. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74, 1557–1585. Sergio, R., Cuestas, P. J., & Fenollar, P. (2008). An examination of the interrelationships between self‐esteem, others' expectations, family support, learning approaches and academic achievement, Studies in Higher Education, 33, 127–138.
Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012). Unseen disadvantage: How American universities' focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1178–1197. Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 255–270. Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Deci and Ryan's self-determination theory: A view from the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 312–318. Vallerand, R. J. (2011). Personal Communication. Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599–620. Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F. (1992). The Academic Motivation Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 1003–1017. Vianello, M., Robusto, E., & Anselmi, P. (2010). Implicit conscientiousness predicts academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 452–457. Wigfield, A., & Wagner, A. L. (2005). Competence, motivation, and identity development during adolescence. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 222–229). New York, N. Y. The Guilford Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91.