Implicit beliefs, achievement goals and affect: a cross-cultural comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research suggests that the implicit theories students hold about learning predict the types of goals they set for learning and the consequences these belief-goal structures have on student cognition, affect, and behaviour. Although previous studies have indicated that individuals with incremental and entity theories of intelligence set mastery and performance goals for learning, respectively, there is a lack of studies testing the validity of this relationship across cultures. Caucasian (n = 58) and Asian (n = 38) students completed measures of their implicit beliefs about intelligence, their achievement goals, and affect. After learning a novel way to solve multiplication problems, participants were randomly assigned to a negative, positive, or no feedback condition. Participants' beliefs, goals and affect were reassessed following feedback. Results show that Asians did not endorse incremental theories of intelligence significantly more than Caucasians, that Asian students' endorsements of mastery and performance goals were highly correlated and that both Caucasian students and Asian students were significantly affected by negative performance feedback. These results are consistent with a growing body of research suggesting that current conceptualizations of achievement goal theory are not cross-culturally valid.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".