Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
1
Running Head: INFLUENCES ON MOTIVATIONAL BELIEFS IN YOUNG CHILDREN
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children:
A Longitudinal Study
Susan Hegland and Karen Colbert
Department of Human Development & Family Studies
Iowa State University
Paper presented to the biennial conference of the Society for Research in Child Development,
Minneapolis, April 2001. This study was partially supported by the Family and Consumer
Sciences Research Institute at Iowa State University and by the Administration for Children,
Youth, and Families. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Christina Emery,
Shari Mensing Faber, Erika Kluge Frake, Tammi Hechtner, Cathy Hockaday, Kristin Riggins
Caspers, and Susan Umscheid in facilitating data collection, entry, and cleaning. Correspondence
should be addressed to Susan Hegland, 2361 Palmer, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 500114380 (shegland@iastate.edu).
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children:
A Longitudinal Study
Abstract
Children from lower income families were followed from kindergarten through third grade
in a study of the factors predicting motivational beliefs. Measures of children’s reading and
mathematics performance, as well as questions related to the quality and effort expended in their
schoolwork, were administered to 145 children. Assessments of children’s beliefs regarding
strategies of effort, ability, unknown causes, luck, and powerful others were used to produce
measures of control beliefs. Nearly all children agreed that effort was the best way for them to
get good grades in school and that they worked very hard in school. Children’s language skills
upon entering kindergarten, parenting responsiveness measured during the primary grades, and
mathematical problem solving in second grade accounted for a significant proportion of variance
in undermining control beliefs after controlling for family background and teacher ratings. The
model accounted for 39% of the variance in undermining control beliefs.
2
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
The Development of Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
A Longitudinal Study
According to Skinner (1995), motivational beliefs are cognitive-mediational variables that
are constructed by the child through his/her success/failure experiences, are influenced by the
adults who interact with him/her, and influence subsequent efforts in similar activities.
Numerous researchers have reported that older children’s cognitive beliefs about their academic
abilities are related to their academic performance (Bong & Clark, 1999; Eccles, Wigfield, &
Shiele, 1997). Self efficacy, as defined by Bandura (1977), refers to the belief that one can
successfully carry out the behaviors required to produce a given outcome. In a metaanalysis of
the literature, Multon, Brown, and Lent (1991) reported a median correlation of .36 between
academic self-efficacy and measures of academic performance, including persistence. Although
self-efficacy is seen as domain, subject, and task specific; it appears to be less differentiated in
younger children (Bong & Clark, 1999).
Connell and Wellborn (1991) argued that children differ in their beliefs in the importance
for success of five different strategies: effort, ability, powerful others, luck, and unknown
strategies. In assessing self-efficacy relative to specific tasks, researchers have combined the
child’s beliefs about the specific strategies likely to lead to success in a given situation together
with the child’s assessment of his/her capacity to utilize that strategy. Skinner (1991) argued that
perceived control can be assessed in elementary school children for the academic domain, across
subject areas and specific tasks, by assessing the child’s belief in general control of success in
schoolwork, beliefs in the effectiveness of each of the five strategies, as well his/her beliefs in
own capacity to successfully employ each strategy. For example, the child is likely to exert effort
in the classroom if he/she believes that effort is helpful in achieving academic success and the
3
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
child believes that he/she is capable of exerting such effort. To assess these beliefs, Skinner
(1995) developed two scales, one measuring control beliefs likely to promote effort and one
measuring control beliefs likely to undermine effort. A child with a high score on the promoting
beliefs score is a child who believes that he/she controls success in school tasks and that the
strategies of effort, ability, and luck are effective in getting good grades; furthermore, this child
believes that she/he can use effort, ability, and can get others to like him/her. In contrast, a child
with a high score on the undermining beliefs score is a child who believes that the way to get
good grades is unknown, luck, and or through powerful others; furthermore, this child also
believes that he/she lacks the capacity for effort, ability, luck, and getting others to like him/her.
Skinner’s concept of undermining control beliefs is related to Seligman’s construct of
learned helplessness, which describes the state in which the individual perceives that he/she
cannot escape failure through his or her responses (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998).
Individuals who are helpless are more likely to perceive failures as caused by factors beyond
their control, such as ability or powerful others, and successes to unstable factors such as luck or
unknown factors (Connell & Wellborn, 1991).
Perceptions of control and academic success
Numerous researchers have shown the impact of motivational beliefs on children’s
academic performance. For example, Stipek (1996) reported the results of a study by Collins on
the impact of motivational beliefs on children’s mathematics performance. After controlling for
children’s ability level, children with higher levels of self efficacy solved more mathematics
problems successfully and chose to rework problems that they had not solved successfully than
did children with lower levels of self-efficacy.
4
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
Developmental changes
Skinner (1995) reported that children show considerable developmental changes in self
perceptions as causal agents from seven to 12 years of age. In addition, they change in their
understanding of the role that strategies such as luck, effort, ability, powerful others, and
unknown factors produce in academic outcomes. For example, factor analyses of the responses
from different age groups revealed that seven- to eight-year-olds identify two major strategies:
unknown ones and all others (i.e., ability, effort, luck, and powerful others). In contrast, nineyear-olds identified three types of strategies: ability/effort, luck/powerful others, and unknown.
Not until 12 years of age did children show understanding of the reciprocal relationship of ability
and effort with success (Skinner, 1995).
Skinner found that children’s beliefs in the efficacy of effort decline during the elementary
years, as do beliefs that the causes of successes and failures are unknown. Her findings on the
developmental decline in beliefs in effort have been supported by the findings of numerous other
researchers (e.g., Nicholls, 1978; Stipek, 1984a). In a review of the literature, Stipek (1984b)
reported that, in the primary grades, children rate themselves as high in ability; furthermore, they
tend not to show decrements in performance as a result of failure. For example, Stipek and Ryan
(1997) found that low income kindergarteners reported high perceptions of capability, although
their academic skills were far below those of their peers. Indeed, Weisz (1984) reported that
kindergarten children stated that the outcome of chance events was due to their effort while
fourth graders were confused as to the distinction between chance and effort. Recently, however,
Burhans and Dweck (1995) reported that young children (aged 5 to 6 years) who received failure
feedback responded negatively and judged themselves to be bad people.
5
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
Several explanations have been advanced for these developmental changes. First, complex
cognitive judgements are required for the child to process successes and failures and translate
them into expectancies for future tasks. Secondly, during the elementary school years, children
become more accurate in judging themselves. Finally, preschools and early grades are less
competitive; therefore, young children are less likely to received evaluative feedback that would
shape their control beliefs.
The influence of adults on children’s control beliefs
The child’s interactions with peers, teachers, and parents, as well as his/her maturing
cognitive abilities, influence the developmental changes in control beliefs that occur during the
elementary school years (Eccles, Wigfield, & Shiefele, 1998). According to Bandura (1997),
self-efficacy links behaviors, cognitions, and environmental events, including vicarious learning
and feedback from others. Bandura argued that one’s own mastery experiences are more
important than other sources of information. However, Connell (1985) reported that children
were unaware of what caused success and failure in the classroom. This lack of awareness may
come from tasks in which success or failure is not apparent to the child or to confusing messages
from teachers. In support of this explaination, Brophy (1981) reported that teachers do not
consistently praise children’s effort or success in classroom activities; rather, teachers
occasionally praised a child who failed.
According to Skinner (1995), adults influence children’s control beliefs by the
expectations, contingencies, assistance, and feedback they give children. Adults communicate
expectations about the performance related to the likelihood of success on the activity and the
cause of that success. They also direct the child to tasks for which success may or may not be
contingent on the child’s efforts. They provide assistance to the child; however, studies by
6
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
Nicholls (1978) has shown that both the child and his/her peers interpret too much assistance as
indicating a lack of ability in the child. Finally, adults give the child feedback that communicates
the strategy responsible for task success or failure as well as a message on the child’s capacity
for that strategy.
Other authors have described parenting behaviors likely to affect children’s motivational
beliefs. Baumrind (1971) argued that authoritative parenting, associated with responsive and
nurturant caregiving, is related to positive motivational and achievement outcomes. Conversely,
one would expect that less responsive and less nurturant parenting would be associated with
negative motivational outcomes. In support of this hypothesis, Hokoda and Fincham (1995)
reported that mothers of third grade children categorized as helpless, in contrast to other mothers,
made fewer nurturant statements and were less responsive to their children’s requests for help.
Purpose
Numerous researchers have shown the impact of self-efficacy and control beliefs on
children’s academic performance in the upper grades, high school, and college. However,
because of the language complexities involved in assessing the child’s perception of causality,
reliable assessments of control beliefs have not been reported below third grade (Skinner, 1998).
Although theoretical arguments have been made for the influence of family, teacher, and
cognitive influences on the development of control beliefs, there is a dearth of longitudinal
studies in the field. Finally, it is important to study engagement beliefs among children from low
income families, who are most in jeopardy of academic failures. The purpose of the present
study was to assess the parenting, teaching, and cognitive contributors to children’s motivational
beliefs in third grade. A secondary purpose is to describe the relative importance of beliefs in the
strategies, including effort, ability, luck, powerful others, as well as unknown causes responsible
7
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
for academic successes or failures and the relative importance of children’s beliefs in their
capacity for effort, ability, luck, and powerful others.
Method
Participants.
Participants for this study were 145 children drawn from a two cohort longitudinal study of
children from lower income families as they progressed from kindergarten through third grade
from seven schools in a small midwestern city. The sample was predominately low income; 90%
of the families had incomes below 200% of the poverty guidelines. In the fall of their children’s
kindergarten year, all parents were asked to estimate their family’s monthly income. Over 49%
of the families had incomes of less than $1000 per month; an additional 39% of the families
reported incomes of less than $2000 per month. The remaining families had incomes between
$2001 and $3000 a month (approximately 12%). One parent (2%) could not estimate his family’s
income. No significant increase in per capita income, after adjusting for inflation, were found by
the time the children were in third grade. The sample was predominantly Caucasian (85%), 6%
of the families were Hispanic, and the remaining families were either African American, Asian,
or Native American.
Measures.
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Revised. This standardized measure of scholastic
achievement (Woodcock & Johnson, 1990) was used as the dependent measure for the current
study. The Woodcock-Johnson-Revised was individually administered to both groups of children
in the spring of kindergarten, first, and third grades. For children aged nine, the internal
consistency reliability coefficients of the Woodcock-Johnson-Revised for the Letter-Word
Identification and Passage Comprehension subscales are .94 and .88, respectively. The validity
8
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
of the Woodcock-Johnson-Revised was measured by comparing the scores on this instrument to
scores on other measures of school achievement. When Woodcock-Johnson-Revised scores were
compared with scores from the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised, the correlations ranged
from .54 to .83 for children aged nine (Woodcock & Mather, 1990). Using conversion tables
provided by Woodcock and Mather (1990), the children’s raw scores on the Woodcock-JohnsonRevised were converted into W-Scores, Rasch ability scores that correspond to an interval scale,
in order to facilitate longitudinal data analysis.
The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-Revised were individually administered
to all children in the current study at the beginning of kindergarten and at the end of each grade.
Forms A and B were alternated for each grade. Children completed the Passage Comprehension
test, which measured reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge, by identifying the
missing words in short sentences and paragraphs. Basal levels were established after the child
responded correctly to six consecutive items. The testing session concluded when the child
missed six consecutive items, thus achieving a ceiling on the measure. A typical third grade item
on the Passage Comprehension subscale might require the child to identify the word “paper” as
being missing from the following sentence: “The teacher said that it was time for our vocabulary
test. I opened my folder and took out a piece of ____.” Not surprisingly, scores on the passage
comprehension showed a floor effect; therefore, letter-word identification scores in kindergarten
were used in all analyses in the present study because of the high correlation with third grade
reading comprehension and equivalent variance.
At the end of third grade, the short form (20-item) of the Student Perception of Control:
Academic Domain Questionnaire was individually and orally administered to each child before
the achievement assessment began. Each child’s responses were individually recorded by the
9
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
interviewer. Following Skinner’s protocols (1995), two summary scores were calculated for each
child. First, a promoting engagement score was calculated from child’s responses to 10 questions
relating to overall perception of control, the strategy and the capacity for effort, the capacity to
benefit from powerful others, the capacity for luck, and the inverse of the strategy and the
capacity for ability. An undermining control beliefs score was calculated from responses to 10
questions relating to the effectiveness of the strategy of unknown causes, the belief that one lacks
the capacity for effort, the belief that one lacked the capacity for ability, strategy of and capacity
for powerful others, the belief in the strategy and (reverse coded) capacity for luck. The items on
the questionnaire and their use in the promoting and undermining control subscales are given in
Table 1.
____________________
Insert Table 1 about here
____________________
Although Skinner recommended multiplying the capacity and strategy beliefs together,
before summing, in order to gain a measure of perception of control, analyses revealed that this
estimate of undermining produced was highly correlated with the straight additive scale (r = .94)
and was not correlated higher with scores on academic assessments than was the linear model.
Therefore, the simpler, linear formula was used. One outlying value, which was five standard
deviations above the mean, was recoded to three standard deviations above the mean to avoid
unduly influencing statistical analyses. Children’s gender was coded dichotomously (female =
1).
Teacher ratings of children’s academic skills. Teachers’ perceptions of each child’s academic
skills were assessed using the 10-item academic rating scale from the elementary scale of the
10
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
Social Skills Rating System (Gresham & Elliott, 1990). Demaray et al. (1995) evaluated six
published social skills ratings scales for their content and use, standardization sample and norms,
scores and interpretation, and psychometric properties. They concluded that the SSRS was the
most comprehensive of the six scales compared and recommended its use in either screening or
research contexts due to its multi-source approach and strong reliability and validity. Raw scores
were converted to scale scores, (M = 100, SD = 10) following the manual directions.
Parent measures. As a measure of family structure, families were coded as to those with fathers
present (1) and those without (0). Parent education was recoded into four groups: those with less
than a high school diploma (13%), those with a high school diploma or G.E.D. (35%), those with
some college (37%), and those who had completed an A.A. degree or more (15%).
Parent Nurturance and Responsiveness. Parent nurturance and responsiveness were measured
with the Parenting Dimensions Inventory (Slater & Power). Kochanska, Kuczynski, and RadkeYarrow (1989) found a significant correlation between child-rearing practices that were
naturalistically observed and those that were reported by parents.
Parenting perceptions for the present study were assessed using the Parenting Dimensions
Inventory (PDI). The original PDI (Slater & Power, 1987) is a self-report instrument that
measures the following nine dimensions of parenting: nurturance, responsiveness to child input,
nonrestrictive attitude, type of control, amount of control, maturity demands, involvement,
consistency, and organization. Most of the items on the PDI were drawn from existing parenting
instruments; although according to the authors, some times were generated by a research team
based on their review of parenting literature and other parenting assessments. After
administering all items to a sample of 112 parents with at least one child between 4 and 14 years
of age, the final 54 items were chosen.
11
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
A shortened version of the PDI was used for the present study. This version of the PDI
measures the four factors of nurturance, responsiveness, nonrestrictive attitude, and consistency.
The 26-item questionnaire asks parents to rate how self-descriptive each statement is on a 6-point
scale from 0 “not at all descriptive of me” to 6 “highly descriptive of me”. To avoid possible
response bias, 15 of the items were reversed in wording. Scores were calculated by averaging the
responses to the items making up the scales after reverse coding the necessary items. In a
replication sample of 140 parents of children ages 6 to 12, Cronbach’s alphas of .76, .54, .70, and
.79 were calculated for these four subscales of nurturance, responsiveness, nonrestrictive
attitude, and consistency respectively.
In Slater and Power (1987), scores from the PDI successfully predicted parent ratings on
the Child Behavior Checklist, establishing convergent validity. Due to low coefficient alphas
obtained on two of the PDI subscales for the present study, a principal components factor
analysis was conducted on the 26 items of the PDI.
Procedure
After the study was approved by the University Human Subjects Review Committee,
schools and families in the six elementary schools in the community were sent letters recruiting
them to participate in a longitudinal study of children's transition through third grade, as a part of
the National Head Start Transition Study. All families with children in kindergarten in the fall of
1992 and the fall of 1993 received the letter. Two cohorts of children participated; Cohort I
began kindergarten in 1992, Cohort II in 1993. Of the families whose children had attended Head
Start the previous year, 20% of Cohort I and 10% of Cohort II refused to participate in the study.
Using neighborhood, classroom, and child gender, a sample of non-Head Start families were
recruited through telephone and door-to-door contacts to match, as much as possible, the families
12
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
of Head Start children.
Graduate assistants interviewed all families either in the family's home or at a specified
meeting place. Interviewers gave each family an honorarium of $20 following each interview.
Interviews were conducted orally to avoid illiteracy problems. Families signed consent forms
allowing the research staff to assess the children at school. Each child was assessed individually;
in third grade, the Student Perceptions of Control Questionnaire: Academic was given prior to
administration of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Revised) and four subscales of the
Woodcock Johnson Scales of Achievement. Teachers were given two weeks to complete
questionnaires, which they received in packets. They received an honorarium of $5 for each
completed questionnaire. Teacher ratings were only available for 129 of the children in the
original sample because 16 children had moved out of the school district by third grade.
Results
In third grade, on the Student Perceptions of Control Questionnaire, nearly 90% of the
children labeled as “very true” the statements “The best way for me to get good grades is to work
hard” and “I can work really hard in school”. Internal reliability for the promoting control beliefs
score was very low (? = .30). Not surprisingly, due to the lack of reliability in the measure,
scores on the promoting control beliefs scale were not significantly correlated with any family,
teacher, or child predictors; therefore, they were not used in any subsequent analyses.
Children’s scores on the undermining control beliefs measure were also skewed; only 20%
of children stated that half of more of the statements in the undermining beliefs scale were
usually or very true of them. However, analyses indicated a moderate level of internal
consistency in the undermining engagement score (? = .76). To prevent undue influence of
outlier scores on the kindergarten measures and the Student Perception of Control Questionnaire
13
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
were recoded to three standard deviations from the mean. In addition, a square root
transformation was used to normalize the variance; however, no correlation or beta was changed
by this transformation, so the untransformed measure is used in the present report.
____________________
Insert Table 2 about here
____________________
Figure 1 shows the mean scores for each of the questions related to children’s beliefs in the
positive and negative outcome of each strategy. Most children believed that the strategies of
effort and ability were the most important strategies leading to good grades and that, conversely,
that they would not get good grades without both effort (“working hard”) and ability (“being
smart”). The strategy of powerful others (i.e., “getting the teacher to like you”) was rated as
being the least important strategy for getting good grades.
_____________________
Insert Figure 1 about here
_____________________
Figure 2 shows the mean scores for each of the questions related to children’s beliefs in their
own capacities for success and failure (internal), as well as their specific beliefs in their
capacities to get good grades and avoid bad grades through ability, effort, luck, and powerful
others. Again, children perceived that their capacity for effort and ability were very high.
_____________________
Insert Figure 2 about here
_____________________
14
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
Correlations among the variables in Table 3 showed that all of the predictor variables were
negatively and significantly related to children’s undermining control beliefs. Although teacher
ratings of children’s academic skills in third grade was significantly related to children’s
undermining control beliefs in the zero order correlations, this effect disappeared when
children’s academic skills in second grade were controlled for. Teacher’s estimates of ability
appeared to have no more influence on children’s control beliefs beyond the influence of the
ability itself.
In third grade, scores on the undermining control beliefs scale were negatively and
significantly correlated with reading comprehension (r = -.33, p < ..001), and in mathematics
problem solving (r = -.52, p < .001). Zero-order correlations, shown in Table 3, showed that
undermining control beliefs were unrelated to the presence of the father in the home but were
correlated with parent education, parenting nurturance and responsiveness, kindergarten math
and language scores, second grade math and reading scores, and third grade teacher ratings of the
child’s overall academic abilies.
____________________
Insert Table 3 about here
____________________
Hierarchical regression analyses were used to determine the percentage of variance in third
grade scores on the undermining control measure which were accounted for by parent, teacher,
and child predictors after controlling for family background. Child predictors were selected from
kindergarten and second grade measures in order to identify precursors to undermining control
beliefs. Parent and teacher measures were taken from kindergarten through third grade measures.
15
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
Gender was unrelated to scores on the undermining beliefs measure (r = .05, p > .20), and were
not included in the analysis.
____________________
Insert Table 4 about here
____________________
Analyses showed that, after accounting for the influence of family structure, parent
education, undermining control beliefs were significantly predicted by children’s language
development and mathematical problem solving skills in kindergarten as well as their reading
and mathematical problem solving skills in second grade. Family background and parenting
measures accounted for a total of 15% of the variance in undermining control beliefs. Children’s
language and mathematical problem solving skills in kindergarten accounted for an additional
20% in the variance of control beliefs, after controlling for parenting and family background
variables. Second grade reading and mathematical problem solving abilities accounted for an
additional 4% of variance in undermining control beliefs. However, teacher ratings of academic
skills in third grade failed to significantly increase the amount of variance accounted for after
controlling for all family and academic ability variables.
A comparison of the standardized regression weights revealed that language development in
kindergarten and mathematics problem solving in second grade were the biggest predictor of
undermining control beliefs, followed by parent responsiveness. After controlling for all other
variables, a decrease of one standard deviation in the child’s language score entering
kindergarten resulted in an increase of .30 s.d. in the undermining beliefs score assessed at the
end of third grade.
16
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
Discussion
In the present sample of third grade children from lower income families, the measure of
promoting control beliefs did not show internal consistency. However, the measurement
difficulties in the instrument are not surprising, given the lack of variance in children’s estimates
of the efficacy of the strategy of effort, and their own capability for exerting effort in school. As
seen in Figure 2, third grade children see themselves as highly capable in internal control, ability,
effort, getting others to like them, and luck. It is noteworthy that, although they described
themselves as highly capable of getting the teacher to like them, as a strategy, they did not
believe that getting the teacher to like them is a strategy likely to lead to good grad in school
(Figure 1). This distinction provides evidence for the need to separately assess children’s beliefs
regarding strategies and capacities. Clearly, effort and ability were seen by the majority of
children as the strategies most likely to lead to good grades. Although other researchers have
reported that fourth graders confuse outcomes of effort and luck (Weisz, 1984), the present
results suggest that children perceive the strategies of effort and ability as far more important for
achieving good grades (see Figure 1 than the strategies of luck and powerful others. However,
because the questions in the present study were directed toward the academic domain, it is highly
possible that luck would still be perceived as a viable strategy in other contexts (e.g., games,
athletics). Even in the academic context, luck is still perceived as more likely to lead to success
than powerful others or unknown causes.
Numerous authors have suggested that motivational beliefs are context specific;
accordingly, the present study focused on the academic domain. However, mathematical problem
solving skills were more predictive of children’s motivational beliefs than were reading skills.
The reason for this difference is unclear. By third grade reading comprehension may depend
17
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
more on automatized, non-effortful processes that are less affected by undermining control
beliefs. In contrast, previous researchers have demonstrated the impact of motivational beliefs on
the effort involved in solving problems. It is also possible that what constitutes success, and the
strategies that lead to success, as opposed to failure, are more salient to the third grade child in
the context of mathematics than in reading. Another possible explanation is that children
associate “good grades” more with their performance on mathematics because feedback is more
evaluative on mathematics than in reading. Mathematics assignments may provide more
opportunities for peer comparisons than reading activities, with their emphasis on written work.
Additional research is needed to investigate these hypotheses.
Parenting, language skills, and mathematical problem solving skills, assessed through the
primary grades, all accounted for significant variance in children’s undermining control beliefs
in third grade. However, parent education, teacher ratings of academic skills, and reading skills,
all significantly related to undermining control beliefs, were no longer significant predictors in
the model once the variance from language skills, parent responsiveness, and children’s
academic skills was accounted for. Because all of the academic ability measures were measured
before third grade, the model does suggest that both parent and child factors on children’s control
beliefs. The relationship is likely to be a reciprocal one; the child with more advanced language
skills and problem solving capacities may well elicit different forms of encouragement and
feedback from adults and teachers which, in turn, serves to advance the child’s control beliefs as
well as subsequent development in problem solving skills. Unfortunately, numerous researchers
(e.g., ) have shown that the child’s control beliefs cannot be reliably assessed prior to third grade,
possibly due to the listening comprehension demands of the complex statements in extant
measures.
18
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
Nearly 80% of the children in the present study expressed very low levels of undermining
control beliefs. Only 20% of the children in this study responded to over half of the undermining
control beliefs (see Appendix) were usually or very true of them, agreeing that such statements
as “I don’t know what it takes for me to get good grades”, or “I am unlucky at my schoolwork.”
were true of them. For the latter group of children, however, the developmental picture is
discouraging. Children with higher levels of undermining control beliefs entered kindergarten
with lower levels of language and problem solving skills and were more typically from families
headed by mothers and/or parents with lower levels of education. Further, their parents reported
providing these children receive lower levels of nurturance and responsiveness. In second grade,
they showed lower levels of mathematical problem solving skills; by third grade, they were rated
by their third grade teachers as showing lower levels of academic skills.
The results of the present study support the contention of Eccles and others that cognitive,
environmental, and motivational factors are likely to impact the relationship between
undermining control beliefs and academic skills. Children with more advanced cognitive
abilities, as represented by language and mathematical problem solving are less likely to attribute
successes and failures to unknown factors, luck, and powerful others. They are also, by third
grade, less likely to receive feedback by teachers and parents that attributes successes to
uncontrollable factors. Finally, children with higher levels of undermining control beliefs may be
less likely to persist in the testing situation. Evidence for the latter conclusion comes from a
study by Collins, cited by Stipek (1996), who found that, in mathematics, children with lower
levels of undermining control beliefs, after controlling for ability, demonstrated both higher
levels of skills and higher persistence in problem.
19
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
The relationship between control beliefs and academic achievement is most likely a
reciprocal one: Results of the present study suggest that control beliefs are influenced by the
child’s maturing cognitive abilities, as assessed by kindergarten language and mathematical
problem solving. Control beliefs are also influenced by the support and feedback provided by
adults, including parents, through the nurturance and responsiveness that they provide. Control
beliefs, in turn, influence children’s subsequent efforts in academic activities, thereby affecting
the development of academic abilities.
As Bell (1979) pointed out, however, the direction of influence between adult and child is
most likely reciprocal. Children influence the type of feedback that they receive from parents and
teachers. However, the results of the present study suggest that intervention may be needed to
help children achieve more success in their mathematical problem solving. The high levels of
effort reported by the children throughout the primary grades, coupled with the steadily
decreasing assessment of success in schoolwork, suggests that some of these children may be at
risk for learned helplessness, particularly in the area of mathematical problem solving.
Skinner argued that the elementary school years are a critical period for the development of
promoting control beliefs. By the end of sixth grade, she suggested, these beliefs have
crystallized and are much less malleable flexible to environmental manipulations. The increasing
gap between children’s self-assessments of quality and effort, together with their self
assessments of the current level of their effort, suggests that teachers will be challenged to help
children identify realistic strategies under their control that will lead to success in their
schoolwork, particularly mathematical problem solving. Following Skinner’s suggestions that
children’s beliefs are influenced by the expectancies, contingencies, level and type of assistance,
and feedback, careful assessment of the specific messages and tasks teachers give children that
20
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
may enable their efforts to be more successful. However, based on the results of the present
study, it appears that the most powerful influence on children’s undermining control beliefs in
third grade are the language skills and problem solving skills they exhibit upon entrance to
kindergarten. Examination of the zero-order correlations revealed that over 25% of the variance
in third grade control beliefs was accounted for by the language skills of children entering
kindergarten. These language skills reflect the quality of the language environment in the
preschool years as well as the child’s inborn capacity to learn language.
21
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multi-faceted impact
of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206 – 1222.
Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth
& Society, 9, 239-276.
Bell, R. Q. (1979). Parent, child, and reciprocal influences. American Psychologist, 34, 821826.
Bong, M. & Clark, R. C. (1999). Self-efficacy and academic achievement. Educational
Psychologist, 34, 139-154.
Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research,
51, 5 – 32.
Burhans, K.K., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). Helplessness in early childhood: The role of
contingent worth. Child Development, 66, 1719 – 1738,
Connell, J. P. (1985). A new multidimensional measure of children’s perception of control.
Child Development, 56, 1018 – 1041.
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: A
motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds), Minnesota
Symposium on Child Psychology (vol. 23). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender
differences in children’s self-and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development,
64, 830 – 847.
22
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A, & Schiefele, U. (1909). Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg
(Ed.) Social, emotional, and personality development. Vol. III of W. Damon (Ed.) Handbook of
child psychology, pp. 1018 – 1075. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Flammer, A. (1995). Developmental analysis of control beliefs. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Selfefficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). The social skills rating system. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Grolnick, W. S. & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s selfregulation and competence: A social contextual perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology,
81, 143 – 154.
Hokoda, A., & Fincham, F. D. (1995). Origins of children’s helpless and mastery
achievement patterns in the family. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 375 – 385.
Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perception of
academic attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability. Child
Development, 800 – 814.
Nicholls, J. G. (1980). The development of the concept of difficulty. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 26, 271 – 281.
Nicholls, J. G. & Miller, A. T. (1985). Development and its discontents: The differentiation
of the concept of ability. In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol.3.
The development of achievement motivation. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Phillips, D. A. (1987). Socialization of perceived academic competence among academically
competent children. Child Development, 55, 2000 – 2016.
23
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
Phillips, D. A., & Zimmerman, M. (1990). The developmental course of perceived
competence and incompetence among competent children. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligan
(Eds.), Competence considered. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1985). Classroom experience and children’s selfperceptions of ability, effort, and conduct. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 646 – 657.
Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 549 – 570.
Skinner, E. A., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Connell, J. P. (1998). Individual differences and the
development of perceived control. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development no. 254, 63 (2/3).
Skinner, E. A. (1986). The origins of young children’s perceived control: Caregiver
contingent and sensitive behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 9, 359 –
382.
Skinner, E. A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, and coping. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of
teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85, 571 – 581.
Slater, M. A., & Power, T. G. (1987). Multidimensional assessment of parenting in singleparent families. In J. P. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in family intervention, assessment and theory
(Vol. 4, pp. 197-228). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Stipek, D. J. (1980). A causal analysis of the relationship between locus of control and
academic achievement in first grade. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 5, 90 - 99.
24
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
Stipek, D. J. (1984a). The development of achievement motivation. In C. Ames & R. Ames
(Eds.) Research on motivation and education: Student motivation (Vol. 1). San Diego:
Academic.
Stipek, D. J. (1984b). Young children’s performance expectations: Logical analysis or
wishful thinking. In M. Haehr (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement. Greenwich, CT:
JAI.
Stipek, D. J. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.)
Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 85 – 116). NY: Macmillan.
Stipek, D. J. (1993). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice (2d ed.). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Stipek, D. J., Daniels, D. H. (1988). Declining perceptions of competence: A consequence of
changes in the child or in the educational environment? Journal of Educational Psycnbology, 80,
351 – 356.
Stipek, D. J., & Hoffman, J. M. (1980). Children’s achievement-related expectancies as a
function of academic performance histories and sex. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 86 –
865.
Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different instructional
approaches on young children’s achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66, 209 – 293.
Stipek, D., Recchia, S., & McClintic, S. (1992). Self-evaluation in young children.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57, (1, Serial No. 226).
25
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
Weisz, J. R. (1980). Developmental change in perceived control: Recognizing
noncontingency in the laboratory and perceiving it in the world. Developmental Psychology, 16,
385 – 390.
Weisz, J. R. (1981). Illusory contingency in children at the state fair. Developmental
Psychology, 17, 481 – 489.
Weisz, J. R., & Stipek, D. J. (1982). Competence, contingency, and the development of
perceived control. Human Development, 25, 250 – 281.
Woodcock, R. W., & Mather, N. (1990). WJ-R Tests of Achievement: Examiner's manual. In
R. W. Woodcock & M. B. Johnson (Eds.), Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-educational BatteryRevised . Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1990). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-educational
Battery-Revised. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura (Ed.),
Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
Table 1
Undermining Control Beliefs Subscale from the Student Perceptions of Control Questionnaire:
Academic (Skinner, 1995)
N Item
Belief
Domain
10 I'm not very smart when it comes to schoolwork.
Capacity
Ability
19 I can't seem to try very hard in school.
Capacity.
Effort
Strategy
Luck
18 If I don't get good grades in class, it is because of bad luck.
Strategy
Luck
20 I am unlucky at my schoolwork.
Capacity
Luck
15 To do well in school, I just have to get the teacher to like me.
Strategy
Others
17 I won't do well in school if my teacher doesn't like me.
Strategy
Others
6 I don't seem to be able to get my teacher to like me.
Capacity
Others
8 I don't know how to keep myself from getting bad grades.
Strategy
Unknown
Strategy
Unknown
4 To do well in school, I have to be lucky.
13 I don't know what it takes for me to get good grades.
27
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
Table 2
Descriptive statistics (N = 129)
M
SD
Undermining control beliefs*
1.60
0.53
Father present (kindergarten)
0.47
0.50
Parent education
1.61
0.93
Nurturance
5.07
0.63
Responsiveness
4.22
0.67
Math: (kindergarten).
435.87 13.75
Language: (kindergarten)
83.95
7.99
Teacher rating: third grade
89.03 12.14
Reading: 2nd grade
474.51 19.30
Math: 2nd grade
480.20 13.96
* Untransformed values
28
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
29
Table 3
Zero order correlations (one-way) among predictor variables and undermining control beliefs (N = 129)
Father Pt. Ed.
Control Beliefs
Father presence
Parent ed.
Nurturance
Responsiveness
Math: kdg.
Language: kdg.
Teacher rating:
-0.16 -0.24***
--
0.21*
--
Nurturance Responsiveness Math: Kdg.
-0.22*
-0.30**
-0.40***
Language:
Teacher rating:
Kdg.
3rd
-0.52***
-0.47***
Read: 2nd
Math: 2nd
-0.32*** -0.47***
0.09
0.14
0.17*
0.24***
0.30***
0.07
0.24**
0.24***
0.29***
0.29***
0.30***
0.23*
0.20*
0.20*
0.16
0.06
0.20*
0.18*
0.23*
0.22*
0.10
0.25***
0.22*
0.21*
0.12
--
0.47***
0.53**
0.43***
0.63***
0.51***
0.34***
0.40***
0.69***
0.65***
--
--
--
--
3rd
Reading: 2nd
--
0.53***
Influences on Motivational Beliefs in Young Children
Table 4
Family, Child, and Teacher Predictors of Undermining Control Beliefs
Step
Predictor
1 Father present
Parent ed.
2 Nurturance
Responsiveness
3 Math: Kdg.
Language: Kdg.
4 Math: 2nd
Reading: 2nd
5 Teacher rating
B
S. E.
0.05 0.08
?
p
R2
R2 ?
0.05 0.52 0.07 0.07
F?
df
p
4.79 2, 126 .01
-0.01 0.05 -0.01 0.86
-0.06 0.06 -0.07 0.33 0.15 0.08
5.48 2, 124 .01
-0.14 0.06 -0.17 0.03
0.00 0.00 -0.06 0.54 0.35 0.20 18.73 2, 122 .00
-0.02 0.01 -0.30 0.00
-0.01 0.00 -0.23 0.04 0.38 0.04
0.00 0.00
3.72 2, 120 .03
0.10 0.35
-0.01 0.01 -0.16 0.19 0.39 0.01 1.76
1, 119 .19
B, SE B, ? , and p, are from the fifth model, with all predictor variables included.
30