INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
The Effects of Induced Guilt on Motivation Level to Increase Academic Expenditure
by
Thuy Mai Bui
Dr. Seiji Takaku
Senior Capstone
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
B.A. in Liberal Arts
Social & Behavioral Sciences
Psychology
2022
1
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
2
Abstract
The current study applied Festinger’s (1957) Cognitive Dissonance Theory to explain the
relationship between induced guilt and self-directed motivation in an academic context. While
existing literature has been widely discussing about the effects of induced guilt on the motivation
to conduct prosocial behavior, the connection between guilt and academic motivation is yet to be
examined. Therefore, this study hypothesized that, as students experience the cognitive
discrepancy between their actual and expected academic effort expenditure based on family
expectations, the induced guilt will elevate their motivational level to increase academic effort
expenditure. The results partially supported the hypothesis, indicating that the guilt-induced
dissonance had marginally significant effects on students’ motivation level to increase academic
effort expenditure. Possible limitations and directions for future research were discussed.
Keywords: induced guilt, cognitive dissonance, self-directed motivation
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
3
The Effects of Induced Guilt on Motivation Level to Increase Academic Expenditure
Motivation plays a pivotal role in students’ academic success, and researchers have
discussed different methods to increase academic motivation: student-teacher interaction (Trolian
et al., 2016), peer influence (Molloy et al.,2010) or improving curriculum programming (Saeedi
& Parvizy, 2019). Besides the fore-mentioned methods, inducing guilt may be another method to
increase academic motivation that previous studies have yet to propose. In fact, current literature
only mentioned the linkage between guilt and prosocial behaviors (see e.g., Lindsey, 2006;
Erlandsson et al., 2016; Cunningham et al., 1980, Lazarus, 1991; O’Keefe, 2000). In other words,
literature seems to suggest that guilt provokes other-directed motivation, which is acting for the
sake of others rather than for oneself. However, academic motivation is mainly self-directed, as it
serves to improve oneself and prepare them to succeed in their own life. Although current studies
do not provide sufficient evidence, induced guilt, on occasions, seems to motivate students to
increase their academic expenditure, hence acting for their own sake. Under what conditions, then,
does guilt play the role of influencing self-directed academic motivation? This present study will
investigate this research question, thereby generating a possible explanation for the causal
relationship between induced guilt and self-directed academic motivation.
The Conceptualization of Guilt
Regarding the definition of guilt, Ortony (1987) proposed two different meanings of
guilt: a socio-legal one and an emotional one. The definitions of legal guilt are based on the
notion of violating the legislated rules, and are independent of subjective feelings or sense of
responsibility for past actions (Baumeister et al., 1994). In other words, people could be guilty
without having any feelings of guilt (Ortony, 1987). However, the guilt that this study focuses
on, is emotional guilt. In this study, we refer to guilt as an aroused, unpleasant emotional state
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
4
that stems from one’s distress about the possibility of being in the wrong (e.g., objections to
action, inaction, or intentions) or being perceived to be wrong by others (Baumeister et al.,
1994). It is natural that guilt feels unpleasant, painful, hence triggering self-aggression and selfpunishing attitude (Wallington, 1973) as well as tension and remorse. However, due to this
particular nature, guilt plays an important part in regulating humans’ moral behaviors,
encouraging prosocial behaviors, and correcting past mistakes (Lazarus, 1991; O’Keefe, 2000).
Guilty feelings have been linked with the thoughts of apologizing (Baumeister et al., 1994),
wishing one had acted differently, making amends (Lazarus & Smith, 1990; Tagney et al., 1996;
Carlsmith & Gross, 1969; Freedman et al. 1967), and the efforts to undo or resurrect past actions
and to prevent oneself from conducting harmful behaviors in the future (Lazarus & Smith, 1990;
Roseman, Wiest, & Swartz, 1994). Feelings of guilt can also arise when one imagines or recalls
committing a wrongdoing, or when one is aware that another person, might or might not be
physically present, may suffer adversely from the consequences of one’s action or inaction
(Baumeister et al., 1994). In other words, emotional guilt is based on one’s capacity to know or
to anticipate others’ suffering and the self-attribution that oneself if the reason for that suffering
(Lindsey, 2005; Baumeister et al., 1994; Hoffman, 1982).
Kugler and Jones (1992) proposed that theoretically, guilt can result in both adaptive and
maladaptive consequences. The increased feelings of guilt have been proven to increase
compliance and motivate prosocial behaviors (Carlsmith & Gross, 1969; Cunningham et al.,
1980; Freedman et al. 1967; Lindsey, 2006; Erlandsson et al., 2016; O’Keefe, 2000). One’s sense
of responsibility over their actions or inactions, as well as their sense of controllability over the
situation have been found to be the factors that cause one to self-blame, hence experiencing guilt
and wanting to engage in guilt-reducing activities (Weiner et al. 1982; Lazarus & Smith, 1990;
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
5
Kugler & Jones, 1992). On the other hand, excessive or inappropriate feelings of guilt are
assumed to cause “dysfunctional and disruptive experiences” (Kugler & Jones, 1992),
occasionally leading to clinical disorders (Kugler & Jones, 1992; Breslavs, 2013).
The Multidimensional Model of Guilt
Kubany and Watson (2003) have reviewed the multiple determinants of trauma-related
guilt proposed by existing literature. These determinants include (1) the distress about a negative
outcome (2) the sense of responsibility for causing harm (Kubany et al., 1995) (3) justification or
lack of justification (Kubany et aI., 1995) (4) beliefs about outcome foreseeability and
preventability (Kubany, 1994) and (5) beliefs about violating central personal values. In other
words, the level of guilt will increase when (1) the individual’s situation-related distress is high
(2) the individual believes that he or she is responsible for the fore-mentioned negative situation
(3) the individual believes that his or her actions were unjustifiable (4) the individual believes
that the situation was preventable if he or she had or had not taken action and (5) the individual
believes he or she has violated central personal values (Kubany & Watson, 2003).
This present study focuses on commonplace or “everyday” guilt, as Kubany and Watson
(2003) named it, which shares the same model as trauma-related guilt on a smaller scale, with
significantly lower level of distress (Kubany et al., 2002). Other researchers (Baumeister et al.,
1994; Hoffman, 1982; Weiner et al., 1982) also proposed the basic predictors of guilt, including
(1) the individual’s capacity to anticipate or feel others’ suffering or distress (Baumeister et al.,
1994) (2) the level of self-attribution for such distress due to the sense of responsibility
(Hoffman, 1982; Weiner, 1982) and (3) the individual’s belief in the controllability and
preventability of the situation. Theoretically, the more severe the distress is, the more guilt the
individual feels; the more one feels responsible for the suffering, the higher level of guilt is
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
6
induced; the more one believes that they could have controlled the situation and prevented the
suffering from happening, the more guilt they experience.
Guilt & Self-Directed Motivation
As the study mentioned, previous research has suggested that guilt increases motivation
to engage in prosocial, other-directed behaviors (Carlsmith & Gross, 1969; Cunningham et al.,
1980; Erlandsson et al., 2016; Freedman et al. 1967; Lindsey, 2006; O’Keefe, 2000). Lindsey
(2005) conducted research on the effects of induced anticipated guilt on individuals’ willingness
to help unknown others through bone marrow donation. In the experiment, conditioned
participants received messages with induced perceptions of (1) a threat to the unknown others (2)
a prescribed solution to the threat and (3) self-efficacy in an individual's ability to help. The
results aligned with the hypothesis, which stated that these factors would increase the level of
anticipated guilt the participants experienced, thereby increasing their willingness to conduct
prosocial behavior - donating to help strangers.
However, in an academic context, studying hard and obtaining high academic
achievements are mainly self-directed behaviors, as they serve the benefits of the student
themselves, not of other people. Yet, at times, induced guilt still seems to increase such selfdirected motivation. What might be the similarity between prosocial behaviors (e.g., helping
strangers), and self-directed behavior (e.g., studying and getting good grades)? To provide an
explanation, Batson (1987) proposed a type of prosocial behavior that serves to reduce aversive
arousal, or in other words, the feelings of guilt. In the previous research (Lindsey, 2006), the
participants’ willingness to help unknown people depended on their level of anticipated guilt if
they had not helped. In this case, their prosocial action was partially self-directed, as they were
trying to avoid the unpleasant guilt that might disturb them. In the case of students, their self-
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
7
directed motivation probably increases along with the awareness that they are expected to
conduct self-directed behaviors (i.e., studying harder). Thus, the present study proposed a
sequence of emotions as follows:
Family expectations of students’ academic achievements
↓
Students are reminded of those expectations and how they failed to meet them
↓
Students are aware of their responsibility for causing distress to their family
↓
Tension between being aware of their current studying behaviors and of their family
expectations arises
↓
A need to reduce this tension arises because they want to make amends
↓
Self-directed motivation to study hard to meet family expectations to reduce this tension
However, there are many potential factors that can interfere with this hypothesized
relationship. For example, if a student does not feel the need to fill up the gap between their
family’s expectations and their current studying behavior, the sequence from guilt to selfdirected academic motivation is interrupted. Similarly, this sequence is probably irrelevant to
those who do not think their family is feeling disappointed or sad about them failing, or who do
not think they are responsible for causing such distress. Therefore, for this sequence to occur, a
few requirements need to be satisfied: (1) students are aware of their family’s disappointment (2)
students must feel responsible for it and (3) students must perceive the gap between their present
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
8
academic effort level and the effort level they are supposed to reach to meet their family’s
expectations.
In short, guilt can only increase self-directed motivation to pursue academic excellence
when students recognize a need to fill the discrepancy between their current and expected levels
of academic effort expenditure induced by the feelings of guilt towards their family. Such
discrepancy is conceptualized by the term Cognitive Dissonance. The present study will
elaborate on the hypothesized role of guilt in encouraging self-directed academic motivation
using Festinger’s (1957) Cognitive Dissonance Theory.
Cognitive Dissonance, Guilt and Motivation
Dr. Leon Festinger (1957) presented that pairs of cognitions can be consonant or
dissonant to one another. Cognitions that follow each other are consonant, whereas cognitions
that contradict each other are dissonant. Further studies on dissonance and consonance led him to
develop and publish A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957). Cognitive Dissonance Theory
proposed that cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable tension caused by the inconsistency
between an individual's beliefs and behaviors.
To test this theory, Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) conducted an experiment and
investigated the level of dissonance created when individuals are forced to act against their
personal beliefs. They divided 71 participants into three groups, asked them to do a series of dull
and repetitive tasks before offering to pay them either $1 or $20 to tell the lady who was waiting
to perform the same tasks that they had just experienced were interesting and enjoyable. A
control group was not offered any money to, and never did tell the lie to the waiting lady. After
the experiment, participants were asked to rate their experience with the tasks they had
performed earlier, the participants who were in the $20 condition and control condition
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
9
responded with honesty, saying that the tasks were dull and unenjoyable and that they would not
participate in a similar experiment. On the other hand, those who were in the $1 condition
changed their opinion, saying that the tasks were interesting and that they were willing to
participate in another similar experiment.
In short, those in the $1 condition thought that the $1 was not enough to justify their
action of lying to the lady, so they had to change their opinion to reduce the dissonance between
their action (i.e. lying that the task were enjoyable) and their belief (i.e. the tasks were boring). In
the $20 condition, the participants received sufficient reward to justify their behavior, so they did
not have to change their honest opinion to bring into correspondence with what they said to the
lady. Following the experiment, researchers have also studied on different ways of reducing
cognitive dissonance: (1) changing the behavior (2) changing existing beliefs (3) reducing the
importance of the dissonance and (4) justifying the dissonance (Aaronson, 1976; Festinger,
1957).
Present Study
Because guilt is a form of cognitive dissonance (see e.g., Breslavs, 2013; Stice, 1992), the
ways by which people reduce guilt would be similar to how people reduce dissonance. In this
study, we are going to examine the effects of this dissonance induced guilt on increasing
academic achievement motivation. Specifically, if students are reminded of their family’s
expectations of their academic effort expenditure and feel the obligation to study hard to satisfy
those expectations, and if their current studying behaviors are not as dedicated as they are
supposed to, students must feel guilty about this inconsistency. Thus, they will feel the need to
reduce the gap by changing their current studying behavior, which means their motivational level
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
10
to increase academic effort expenditure also grows. Thus, we have come up with the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis. When students are reminded of the inconsistency between their family's
expectations of their academic achievements and their actual achievements, they will experience
dissonance induced guilt and to reduce this feeling of guilt, they are more likely to increase their
academic achievement motivation than when they are not reminded of the inconsistency.
Method
Participants
One hundred and twenty participants of all racial and gender backgrounds from the
student body of Soka University of America, Aliso Viejo (SUA-AV) took part in the experiment.
The participants were limited to those who are 18 years old or older. All participants who
complete the study are eligible to enroll in a raffle to win a $25 Amazon gift card.
Design
The present study employed a randomized three-groups experimental design. The
independent variable was dissonance-induced guilt. The participants were randomly assigned to
either the induced guilt condition, the induced-pride condition, or the control condition in which
they were not induced any emotion. Guilt-induced dissonance manipulation was conducted by
either reminding the participants of the inconsistency between their current studying behavior
and their family’s expectations (either exceeded or didn’t exceed) or not remined of any
inconsistency. A manipulation check was included. The study also included one dependent
variable: self-directed motivation, measured by self-assessed tentative academic effort
expenditure.
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
11
Procedure/ Materials
The present study took place at Soka University of America, Aliso Viejo, during the
spring semester of 2022. The online survey was distributed to the whole SUA campus through a
campus email, which briefly explained the research topic, participant age requirement and
withdrawal rights, estimated survey time, incentives, and guaranteed confidentiality.
The study consisted of a four-section questionnaire, conducted by the principal
investigator and a research assistant. The first section examined participants’ current attitude
towards academics, the second section involved a set of questions to manipulate guilt-induced
dissonance, the third section included a question to check the efficiency of the manipulation, and
the last section involved a set of questions to measure participants’ motivation level to increase
academic effort.
In the first section, all participants were required to rate their current attitude towards
academic work (i.e., to what extent they value academic work, and how much they think
academics benefits them in the future). The second section, all participants were randomly
assigned into two experimental and one control group. The first group’s participants were asked
whether or not they had ever failed to meet their family’s academic expectations. If the
participant answered yes, they were then required to write about the experience, and rate how
guilty they felt recalling that experience. The second group’s participants were asked whether
they had ever exceeded their family’s academic expectations, and if the answer was yes, they
were then asked to clarify that experience, and rate how guilty they felt recalling the experience.
The control group did not receive any manipulation, they were only asked to rate their overall
academic experience and how willing they were to study harder.
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
12
The third section was reserved for two experimental groups as a manipulation check.
Participants from these two groups were required to rate their level of guilt regarding the
experience. Participants were expected to experience a stronger sense of guilt in the guiltinduced condition as the condition satisfied the determinants to maximize the level of guilt: (1)
participant’s family are let down by their lack of achievements (2) the participant was directly
responsible for causing such distress (3) the participant are aware of the gap between their
current and expected academic effort expenditure (see Appendix A, B, and C for the survey). As
a result of the manipulation, these participants were also expected to give higher ratings in the
final section, where the questionnaire measured their motivation level to increase academic effort
expenditure. As participants experience cognitive dissonance after realizing the gap between
their current studying effort and the studying effort expected by their family, they were then
expected to feel the need to reduce the dissonance by changing their behavior (i.e., increase their
academic effort).
In contrast, the participants from the second experimental group were expected to give a
lower rating of guilt level, as they were reminded of a positive experience: exceeding family’s
academic expectations. As a result, these participants were expected to give lower ratings
regarding academic motivation level compared to the first group, as they neither experiences
cognitive dissonance nor the need to reduce the dissonance by changing their behavior. By
comparing the academic effort expenditure between the two groups, the effect of guilt-induced
dissonance on self-directed motivation (i.e., pursue academic excellence) was examined.
The informed consent form at the start of the survey did not reveal the true objective of
the study to avoid any potential biases that could disrupt the study result. Upon completing the
survey, participants received a debriefing statement that thoroughly explained the research
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
13
question and any forms of manipulations involved in the research process. Lastly, participants
were enrolled in a raffle for an Amazon gift card on a voluntary basis. The raffle page was
separated from the data analysis to protect participants’ anonymity. Only completed responses
were used for analysis.
Results
Creating Motivation Indices for Post-Guilt Manipulation
To create the first motivation index, all ten items of the post-manipulation measure were
analyzed for internal consistency. A principle components factor analysis with varimax rotation
was conducted, and it revealed that three items (i.e., items 2, 7, and 9) were loaded on one
dominant factors (26.8% of variance) (see Table 1). The Chronbach’s alpha for the selected three
items was .74, showing strong reliability. To distinguish this motivation index from the others,
the three-item index was named the Attitude Towards Education Index.
In addition, three items (i.e., items 3,4, and 5) were also loaded on one dominant factor
(16.7% of variance) (see Table 2). The Chronbach’s alpha for the selected three items was
approximately .6, showing sufficient reliability. To distinguish this motivation index from the
first index, the three-item index was named the Engagement Index.
Item 1 was used for analysis as a separate variable. The remaining three items (i.e., items
6,8 and 10) were excluded from further analysis.
Guilt-Induced Dissonance Manipulation Check
To test the validity of the guilt-induced dissonance manipulation, an independent samples
t-test was performed on the Guilt item. As the manipulation check question was included only in
the two experimental groups, only those two experimental groups were examined in this
analysis. The analysis showed that the participants experienced significantly higher level of guilt
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
14
in the “induced-guilt” condition (M = 2.90, SD = 1.73), t(48) = 6.44, p <.001. Thus, the guiltinduced dissonance manipulation was effective (see Table 3).
Testing the Hypothesis
One Way ANOVA
To test the hypothesis, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the effects of
dissonance-induced guilt manipulation on motivation to increasing academic achievement
motivation among all three groups in terms of the following post-manipulation variables: (1)
Number of hours participants intend to spend studying (2) Attitude towards education and (3)
Engagement motivation.
As for the attitude towards education variable, no statistically significant difference
between groups was detected (p = .89). However, the study found a marginally statistically
significant difference between groups regarding the engagement level variable (F(2, 117) = 1.78,
p = .17). A Tukey post hoc test showed that participants in the induced-pride condition express a
slightly higher level of academic engagement motivation than the control group (p = .15). There
was no statistically significant difference between the induced-guilt and control groups (p = .85)
or between the induced-guilt and induced-pride groups (p = .49). Regarding the number of hours
students intend to spend studying variable, there was also a marginally statistically significant
difference between groups as demonstrated by one-way ANOVA (F(2,117) = 1.62, p = .202). A
Tukey post hoc test showed that on average, participants in the induced-guilt group intended to
spend slightly more time studying than those in the control group (p = .19). There was no
statistically significant difference between the induced-guilt and induced-pride groups (p = .37)
or between the induced-pride and control groups (p = .96) (see Table 4).
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
15
Correlation Analyses
The study conducted a Pearson Correlation analysis to further investigate the
relationships among several factors regardless of the dissonance manipulation. In terms of
motivation level to increase academic effort expenditure, the data indicated that on average,
regardless of guilt-induced dissonance manipulation, students who value academic work tend to
have significantly better attitude towards education and academic engagement. In the inducedguilt condition, the study found that students who value their academic work highly tend to have
better academic attitude, r(30) = .41, p < .05 (see Table 5). Similarly, the data signified that the
more participants’ value academic work, the better their attitude towards education, r(35) = .37,
p < .05, as well as their engagement motivation, r(35) = .39, p < .05. are in the induced-pride
condition (see Table 6). Lastly, in the control condition, students’ attitude towards education was
also found to be higher in those who value their education (55) = .40, p < .01 (see Table 7).
Discussion
The present study applied Festinger’s (1957) Cognitive Dissonance Theory to explore the
effects of induced guilt on students’ self-directed motivation to increase academic effort
expenditure. The manipulation check was effective, which showed that on average, students felt
significantly more guilty in the condition when they recalled not meeting their family’s academic
expectations than in the other condition when they recalled exceeding their family’s
expectations. The effective induction of guilt may be attributed to the overall academic
environment that the participants have been immersed in. All participants come from
environment where academic achievements are deemed highly, and academic competence is
considered an essential virtue. In such environment, they are exposed to expectations coming
from school officials, teachers, family, as well as peer pressure from other students who are
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
16
academically ambitious. Therefore, as participants were reminded of a time when their academic
achievements did not fulfill expectations, they generally felt guilty.
However, despite the effectiveness of guilt-induced manipulation on students’ feelings of
guilt, the results only partially supported the hypothesis. The research revealed that students’
academic motivation level was only marginally affected by the induced-guilt dissonance
manipulation. One possible explanation for this result is that the sample size was too small for
any significant difference to be observed. Each of these conditions only included 30-35
participants; therefore, the data obtained, although very close, could not reach the .05 threshold
of significance level. If a bigger sample size was available, the study could probably detect a
statistically significant effect. The second explanation is that the aforementioned induced-guilt
manipulation might not be effective enough to manifest feelings of guilt into a fuel to increase
participants’ motivation to pursue academic excellence. If one wants to improve themselves
academically, they need to enhance their studying habits that they have already gotten used to,
which requires a remarkable amount of self-discipline and will. Humans tend to persist in habits
(Jager, 2003), and breaking a habit only by a temporal manipulation is challenging. It is possible
that the induced guilt manipulation was not powerful enough to make up for the lack of
willingness to change their study routine; therefore, instead of changing their behavior to reduce
cognitive dissonance (i.e., increase academic motivation), the participants probably justified their
attitude or tolerated the cognitive dissonance.
Another explanation for this result involves the cultural factor that might have intervened
with the expression of guilt in this study. According to Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory
(Hofstede, 1984) regarding the individualism-collectivism dimension, collectivist cultures value
group harmony and prioritize common needs rather than individual needs, therefore, members of
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
17
these cultures develop an interdependent perception of self (Hofstede, 2011). Meanwhile,
members of individualist cultures have a more independent self-schemata. Therefore, they tend
to be autonomous and prioritize their personal goal rather than that of their in-groups. (Triandis,
2002; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989, 1995; Triandis, McCusker & Hui, 1990)
Some research has shown the correlation between collectivism-individualism syndrome
and the expression of social emotions (i.e., expression of guilt). Markus and Kitayama (1991)
clearly stated that collectivists, with their interdependent selves, tend to experience and express
other-focused emotions (i.e., sympathy, shame). Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) study also found
the following:
“Among those with interdependent selves (often those from hierarchical cultures),
positive emotional expressions are most frequently used as public actions in the service
of maintaining interpersonal harmony and, thus, are not regarded as particularly
diagnostic of the actor's inner feelings or happiness” (p.236)
Feelings of guilt are classified as other-focused emotion (Markus and Kitayama, 1991);
Considering the research finding, an assumption can be made: people of collectivist cultures are
more likely to express and experience guilt than those of individualist cultures. Nevertheless, as
Markus and Kitayama (1991) suggested, their public expressions of guilt might serve as a
method of promoting pro-sociality rather than an accurate reflection of their true inner feelings.
The study recruited participants from the diverse SUA’s student body, with students from both
collectivist and individualist cultures. Therefore, it is possible that collectivist participants’
ratings of their level of guilt did not accurately reflect their true feelings, which resulted in the
weak correlation between their induced guilt level and their academic motivation.
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
18
The correlation analysis also indicated a positive correlation between participants’
valuation of academic work before the guilt-induced manipulation and their post-manipulation
motivation level to achieve higher academically regardless of conditions. Although this result
was not expected in the hypothesis, the correlation between these variables is natural. As
students understand the value of academic achievements to their lives, whether at present or in
the future, they will be more motivated to study harder. The culture of SUA has always
emphasized the importance of learning in helping individuals to become global citizens, thereby
contributing to society. As students are constantly immersed in these teachings, they generally
are motivated to study harder. Besides, as explained above, SUA is a competitive environment,
when students are expected to perform well academically, and those who perform poorly tend to
experience peer pressure, which enhances their anxiety pertaining to education (Kadir,
Atmowasdoyo & Salija 2018) and affects their self-esteem (Moldes et al., 2019). In this case, the
value of studying is not only limited to improving students’ knowledge, but is also reducing the
influence of peer pressure.
Possible Limitations
As mentioned earlier, one of the limitations of the present study lies in the sample size.
As the survey was released during the busiest time of the academic year, only 120 students out of
over 400 SUA students took part in the experiment. These participants were later randomly
assigned into three groups, one of which received no manipulation. Thus, the guilt-induced
dissonance condition (i.e., “failed to meet family’s expectations” condition) ended up having
only 30 participants; the pride-induced dissonance condition (i.e., “exceeded family’s
expectations” condition) had only 35 participants; and the remaining 55 participants were
assigned to the control group. Such sample size was not large enough to represent the larger
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
19
target population, hence potentially being a threat to both external and internal validity of the
experiment.
Another limitation is attributed to the distinguishable characteristics of the sample body.
The participants were limited to SUA students, who are immersed in SUA’s educational
environment. This lack of diversity might have affected the external validity of this research, as
this sampling model presents SUA’s unique characteristics (e.g., small class size, liberal arts
education, global citizenship and SGI ideology, the dominance of religion, and limited
curriculum). With a sampling model with such small sample size and unique characteristics,
even the significant findings of the current study cannot be generalized to a larger population.
Last but not least, a possible limitation of this study is the lack of within participants
measurement of self-directed academic motivation level, or in other words, pre- and postmanipulation measurements. The present study’s only pre-manipulation measurement was that of
participants’ valuation of academic work, and the motivation level was only measured postmanipulation. Therefore, the study only compared the academic motivation level between two
experimental groups. A perceived academic effort expenditure level (e.g., how much students
feel that they are dedicating to academic work, or how well students think they are engaging to
academic activities) might have been an important pre-manipulation variable, as it would have
helped reflecting the effectiveness of the guilt-induced dissonance manipulation within each
group.
Directions for Future Research
The present study examined the effect of guilt on self-directed motivation, yet it could
not find a strong relationship between these variables due to some methodological flaws and
situational confounds, as described in the previous section. Apart from fixing existing
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
20
limitations, it is important to further investigate confounding variables that may interact with
either part of the hypothesis (e.g., culture, gender). Although the cultural factor was mentioned in
the previous part of the discussion section as one of the possible causes of the reported results,
the experiment did not include culture as an independent variable for analysis. Previous research
suggests a variation of opinions and findings regarding the influence of culture on cognitive
dissonance reduction. Heine and Lehman (1997) found that individualists tend to experience
cognitive dissonance and engage in dissonance reduction behaviors more often than collectivists
due to their different construals of self. Individualists perceive themselves as autonomous
entities, thus they are responsible for their own actions and thoughts. As a result, individualists
experience higher frequency of cognitive dissonance as they perceive the inconsistency between
their attitude and behavior as a direct threat to the self. Meanwhile, collectivists tend to
experience less psychological discomfort due to the inconsistency between their own actions and
attitudes, as their behaviors are largely influenced by social and situational factors. They do not
perceive themselves as the only one responsible for all of their decisions that reflect their values;
therefore, their inconsistency between attitudes and behaviors is not a direct threat to the self.
However, a good amount of cross-cultural research has also concluded that, in certain
theoretical paradigms, despite possessing different motives, collectivists and individualists are
equally likely to experience and be motivated to reduce cognitive dissonance (Takaku, Weiner,
Ohbuchi, 2001). For example, in a hypocrisy research paradigm, Takaku, Weiner, and Ohbuchi
(2001) clarified their finding as follow:
“Whereas collectivists are more concerned about maintaining a good relationship
with others or maintaining social norms regarding how one ought to behave in a
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
21
particular situation, individualists are more concerned about protecting their self-identity
or maintaining justice regarding what is fair” (p. 147)
Similarly, Browne et al. (2005) and Heine and Lehman (1997) also found that:
“East Asians would experience dissonance and are motivated to reduce the
psychological tension by engaging in justification of their choices when their choices
threatened their interdependent self. In other words, when one’s peers or close others are
implicated in their choices, interdependent East Asians are most likely to feel dissonance
and are motivated to engage in dissonance reduction and restoration of the culturally
important self-image.” (p. 133)
In short, whether the individualist-collectivist syndrome and cognitive dissonance are culturally
relative is still in question. Thus, it may be important for future research to further investigate the
role of individualism-collectivism syndrome in the relationship between induced guilt dissonance
and self-directed motivation.
Furthermore, aside from the Cognitive Dissonance approach, there are other approaches
to explain the linkage between induced guilt and self-directed academic motivation. For
example, Weiner’s attribution theory (Weiner, 1985, 1986, 2006; Hareli & Weiner, 2002) can be
applied as another approach to explain the relationship between guilt and self-directed
motivation. According to Weiner’s theory, guilty feelings suggest the individual’s awareness of
their lack of effort, which is an internal controllable cause for failure (Weiner, 1985). As a result,
self-directed motivation is induced (i.e., “I feel guilty as I did not put enough effort, I will put
more effort next time to succeed”).
Another factor that future research can consider to examine, is the effect of interpersonal
closeness, or in other words, emotional bond, on inducing guilt. Baumeister (2007) proposed that
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
22
individuals can only experience guilt to the extent that they can sympathize with the other
person’s feelings. Therefore, it is generally harder for individuals to feel guilty towards a
stranger than towards their family or someone they are emotionally close to.
Increasing self-directed motivation in an academic context has long been the goal of
education leaders, and finding out the relationship between guilt and self-directed academic
motivation will be beneficial to some extent, as it helps facilitate academic motivation, pushing
students to become academically competent. However, as mentioned earlier, guilt is not a
positive emotion to experience long term, as it can result in anxiety and psychological issues.
Therefore, if future studies can explore other methods of increasing students’ academic
motivation, inducing guilt should become the last method to use.
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
23
References
Aaronson, E. (1976). Dissonance theory: Progress and problems. In E. P. Hollander & R. C.
Hunt (Eds.), Current perspectives in social psychology (4th ed., pp. 316–328). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 65–122). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60412-8
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: an interpersonal approach.
Psychological bulletin, 115(2), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.243
Breslavs, G.M. (2013). Moral emotions, conscience, and cognitive dissonance. Psychology in
Russia, 6, 65-72.
Carlsmith, J. M., & Gross, A. E. (1969). Some effects of guilt on compliance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 11(3), 232–239. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027039
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Freedman, J. L., Wallington, S. A., & Bless, E. (1967). Compliance without pressure: The effect
of guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(2, Pt.1), 117–124.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025009
Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (2019). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an
overview of current perspectives on the theory. In E. Harmon-Jones (Ed.), Cognitive
dissonance: Reexamining a pivotal theory in psychology (pp. 3–24). American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000135-001
Harmon-Jones, E. (2004). From Cognitive Dissonance to the Motivational Functions of
Emotions. In R. A. Wright, J. Greenberg, & S. S. Brehm (Eds.), Motivational analyses of
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
24
social behavior: Building on Jack Brehm's contributions to psychology (pp. 39–55).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1997). Culture, dissonance, and self-affirmation. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297234005
Hoffman, M. L. (1982). Development of Prosocial Motivation: Empathy and Guilt. In N.
Eisenberg (Ed.), The Development of Prosocial Behaviour (pp. 281-313). New York:
Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-234980-5.50016-X
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. International
Journal of Behavioral Medicine.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s Culture Dimensions: An Independent
Validation Using Rokeach’s Value Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15(4),
417–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002184015004003
Hoshino-Browne, E., Zanna, A. S., Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., Kitayama, S., & Lackenbauer,
S. (2005). On the cultural guises of cognitive dissonance: The case of Easterners and
Westerners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 294–310.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.294
Jager, W. (2003). Breaking 'bad habits': a dynamical perspective on habit formation and change.
Julle-Danière Eglantine, Whitehouse Jamie, Vrij Aldert, Gustafsson Erik and Waller Bridget M.
2020The social function of the feeling and expression of guiltR. Soc. open
sci.7200617200617http://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200617
Kadir, H., & Salija, K. (2018). The Influence of Peer Groups on Students’ Anxiety in EFL
Learning.
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
25
Kubany, E.S., & Watson, S.B. (2003). GUILT: ELABORATION OF A
MULTIDIMENSIONAL MODEL. Psychological Record, 53, 51-90.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lindsey, L. L. M. (2005). Anticipated Guilt as Behavioral Motivation An Examination of
Appeals to Help Unknown Others Through Bone Marrow Donation. Human
Communication Research, 31(4), 453–481. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/31.4.453
Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2004). (3rd ed.). Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Matsumoto, D., & Yoo, S. H. (2006). Toward a New Generation of Cross-Cultural Research.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 234–250.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40212168
Molloy, L. E., Gest, S. D., & Rulison, K. L. (2011). Peer Influences on Academic Motivation:
Exploring Multiple Methods of Assessing Youths’ Most “Influential” Peer Relationships.
The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(1), 13–40.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431610384487
O’Keefe, D.J. (2000). Guilt and Social Influence. Annals of the International Communication
Association, 23, 101 - 67.
Ortony, A. (1987). Is guilt an emotion? Cognition and Emotion, 1(3), 283–298.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699938708408052
Princeton University. (2013, October 8). Weighed down by guilt: Research shows it's more than
a metaphor. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 19, 2022 from
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131008132858.htm
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
26
Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals
differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 206–
221. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.206
Saeedi, M., & Parvizy, S. (2019). Strategies to promote academic motivation in nursing students:
A qualitative study. Journal of education and health promotion, 8, 86.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_436_18
Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook
of personality: Theory and research (pp. 609–637). The Guilford Press.
Stice, E. The similarities between cognitive dissonance and guilt: Confession as a relief of
dissonance. Current Psychology 11, 69–77 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686829
Takaku, S., Weiner, B., & Ohbuchi, K.-I. (2001). A cross-cultural examination of the effects of
apology and perspective taking on forgiveness. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 20(1-2), 144–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X01020001007
Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Are shame, guilt, and
embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6),
1256–1269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1256
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Westview Press.
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69(6),
907–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.696169
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and
collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 1006–1020.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.1006
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
27
Trolian, T.L., Jach, E.A., Hanson, J.M., & Pascarella, E.T. (2016). Influencing Academic
Motivation: The Effects of Student–Faculty Interaction. Journal of College Student
Development 57(7), 810-826. doi:10.1353/csd.2016.0080.
Vangie M. Moldes, Cherry Lyn L. Biton, Divine Jean Gonzaga, Jerald C. Moneva (2019);
Students, Peer Pressure and their Academic Performance in School; International Journal
of Scientific and Research Publications (IJSRP) 9(1) (ISSN: 2250-3153), DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.9.01.2019.p8541
Van Lange, P. A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2012). Handbook of theories of social
psychology: volume 1. (Vols. 1-1). SAGE Publications Ltd,
https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215
Wallington, S. A. (1973). Consequences of transgression: Self-punishment and depression.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035576
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
Weiner, B. (1986). An Attributional Theory of Achievement Motivation and Emotion. In: An
Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. SSSP Springer Series in Social
Psychology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4948-1_6
Weiner, B. (2006). Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: An attributional approach.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410615749
Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Chandler, C. (1982). Pity, anger, and guilt: An attributional analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(2), 226–232.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167282082007
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
Zaccari, V., Aceto, M., & Mancini, F. (2020). A Systematic Review of Instruments to Assess
Guilt in Children and Adolescents. Frontiers in psychiatry, 11, 573488.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.573488
28
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
29
Appendix A
A Survey on Students’ Guilt and Academic Effort Expenditure Motivation Level with GuiltInduced Dissonance Manipulation
1. What is your race?
▢
White or Caucasian
▢
Black or African American
▢
Hispanic or Latino
▢
Asian or Asian American
▢
American Indian or Alaska Native
▢
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
▢
Another race
2. What is your gender identity?
▢
Male
▢
Female
▢
Non-binary / third gender
▢
Androgyne
▢
Bigender
▢
Genderfluid
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
▢
30
Other/Prefer not to say
Please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements using the scale provided
3. To what extent do you value academic work?
0
1
2
Not at all
3
4
Slightly
5
Quite
6
Very
Much
4. To what extent do you think your academic work benefits your future career?
0
1
Not at all
2
3
Slightly
4
5
Quite
6
Very
Much
5. Have you ever failed to meet your family’s expectations of your academic work?
o Yes
o No
6. Write down in the space provided below your experience of when your academic performance
failed to meet your family’s expectations?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
31
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements using the scale provided
7. How guilty do you feel about the experience you just described above?
0
1
2
Not at all
3
4
Slightly
5
Quite
6
Very
Much
8. How proud do you feel about the experience you just described above?
0
1
2
Not at all
3
4
Slightly
5
Quite
6
Very
Much
9. How sad do you feel about the experience you just described above?
0
Not at all
Much
1
2
3
Slightly
4
5
Quite
6
Very
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
32
10. How happy do you feel about the experience you just described above?
0
1
2
Not at all
3
4
Slightly
5
Quite
6
Very
Much
11. I felt responsible for the negative experience I wrote down in the previous section.
0
1
2
Not at all
3
4
Slightly
5
Quite
6
Very
Much
Please read and answer the following questions about your study habits in general
12. How many hours did you spend studying by yourself per week outside of classroom when
you had the experience you wrote down in the previous section?
_______hours/week on average
13. How many hours do you think you should have spent studying by yourself per week outside
of classroom when you had the experience you wrote down in the previous section?
_______hours/week on average
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
33
14. How many hours do you intend to spend studying by yourself per week outside of classroom
during the next semester?
_______hours/week on average
15. Which best reflects your attitude towards studying?
-2
-1
Very negative
0
Negative
1
Neutral
2
Positive
Very
positive
16. How often do you zone out in class?
0
1
Never
2
3
4
Sometimes
5
6
5
6
Often
Always
17. How well do you concentrate in class?
0
1
Not well at all
2
3
4
Slightly well
Well
Very
well
18. How often do you engage in irrelevant activities in class?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
Never
Sometimes
34
Often
Always
19. How willing are you to get better at concentrating in class?
0
1
2
Not at all
3
4
Slightly
5
6
Quite
Very
1
2
Much
20. Which best reflects your attitude towards school?
-2
-1
Very negative
0
Negative
Neutral
Positive
Very
positive
21. How often do you procrastinate on finishing class assignments?
0
1
2
Never
3
4
Sometimes
5
6
Often
Always
22. Which best reflects your attitude towards class assignments?
-2
Very negative
positive
-1
0
Negative
1
Neutral
2
Positive
Very
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
35
23. How willing are you to achieve higher GPA?
0
1
Not at all
2
3
Slightly
4
5
Quite
6
Very
Much
Appendix B: A Survey on Students’ Guilt and Academic Effort Expenditure Motivation Level
with Pride-Induced Dissonance Manipulation
1. What is your race?
▢
White or Caucasian
▢
Black or African American
▢
Hispanic or Latino
▢
Asian or Asian American
▢
American Indian or Alaska Native
▢
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
▢
Another race
2. What is your gender identity?
▢
Male
▢
Female
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
▢
Non-binary / third gender
▢
Androgyne
▢
Bigender
▢
Genderfluid
▢
Other/Prefer not to say
36
Please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements using the scale provided
3. To what extent do you value academic work?
0
1
2
Not at all
3
4
Slightly
5
Quite
6
Very
Much
4. To what extent do you think your academic work benefits your future career?
0
1
Not at all
2
3
Slightly
4
5
Quite
Much
5. Have you ever exceeded your family’s expectations of your academic work?
o Yes
6
Very
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
37
o No
6. Write down in the space provided below your experience of when your academic performance
exceeded your family’s expectations?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements using the scale provided
7. How guilty do you feel about the experience you just described above?
0
1
2
Not at all
3
4
Slightly
5
Quite
6
Very
Much
8. How proud do you feel about the experience you just described above?
0
Not at all
Much
1
2
3
Slightly
4
5
Quite
6
Very
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
38
9. How sad do you feel about the experience you just described above?
0
1
2
Not at all
3
4
Slightly
5
Quite
6
Very
Much
10. How happy do you feel about the experience you just described above?
0
1
2
Not at all
3
4
Slightly
5
Quite
6
Very
Much
11. I take credit for the negative experience I wrote down in the previous section.
0
1
2
Not at all
3
4
Slightly
5
Quite
6
Very
Much
Please read and answer the following questions about your study habits in general
12. How many hours did you spend studying by yourself per week outside of classroom when
you had the experience you wrote down in the previous section?
_______hours/week on average
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
39
13. How many hours do you think you should have spent studying by yourself per week outside
of classroom when you had the experience you wrote down in the previous section?
_______hours/week on average
14. How many hours do you intend to spend studying by yourself per week outside of classroom
during the next semester?
_______hours/week on average
15. Which best reflects your attitude towards studying?
-2
-1
Very negative
0
Negative
1
Neutral
2
Positive
Very
positive
16. How often do you zone out in class?
0
1
Never
2
3
4
Sometimes
5
6
5
6
Often
Always
17. How well do you concentrate in class?
0
1
2
3
4
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
Not well at all
Slightly well
40
Well
Very
well
18. How often do you engage in irrelevant activities in class?
0
1
2
Never
3
4
Sometimes
5
6
5
6
Often
Always
19. How willing are you to get better at concentrating in class?
0
1
2
Not at all
3
4
Slightly
Quite
Very
1
2
Much
20. Which best reflects your attitude towards school?
-2
Very negative
positive
-1
0
Negative
Neutral
Positive
Very
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
41
21. How often do you procrastinate on finishing class assignments?
0
1
2
Never
3
4
Sometimes
5
6
Often
Always
22. Which best reflects your attitude towards class assignments?
-2
-1
Very negative
0
Negative
1
Neutral
2
Positive
Very
positive
23. How willing are you to achieve a higher GPA?
0
1
Not at all
2
3
Slightly
4
5
Quite
6
Very
Much
Appendix C: A Survey on Students’ Guilt and Academic Effort Expenditure Motivation Level
without Manipulation
1. What is your race?
▢
White or Caucasian
▢
Black or African American
▢
Hispanic or Latino
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
▢
Asian or Asian American
▢
American Indian or Alaska Native
▢
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
▢
Another race
42
2. What is your gender identity?
▢
Male
▢
Female
▢
Non-binary / third gender
▢
Androgyne
▢
Bigender
▢
Genderfluid
▢
Other/Prefer not to say
Please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statements using the scale provided
3. To what extent do you value academic work?
0
Not at all
Much
1
2
3
Slightly
4
5
Quite
6
Very
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
43
4. To what extent do you think your academic work benefits your future career?
0
1
2
Not at all
3
4
Slightly
5
Quite
6
Very
Much
5. How positive does education here at school make you feel?
0
1
2
Not at all
3
4
Slightly
5
Quite
6
Very
Much
6. How willing are you to study harder at school?
0
1
2
Not at all
3
Slightly
4
5
Quite
6
Very
Much
Please read and answer the following questions about your study habits in general
7. How many hours did you spend studying by yourself per week outside of classroom when you
had the experience you wrote down in the previous section?
_______hours/week on average
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
44
8. How many hours do you think you should have spent studying by yourself per week outside of
classroom when you had the experience you wrote down in the previous section?
_______hours/week on average
9. How many hours do you intend to spend studying by yourself per week outside of classroom
during the next semester?
_______hours/week on average
10. Which best reflects your attitude towards studying?
-2
-1
Very negative
0
Negative
1
Neutral
2
Positive
Very
positive
11. How often do you zone out in class?
0
1
Never
2
3
4
Sometimes
5
6
5
6
Often
Always
12. How well do you concentrate in class?
0
1
2
3
4
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
Not well at all
Slightly well
45
Well
Very
well
13. How often do you engage in irrelevant activities in class?
0
1
2
Never
3
4
Sometimes
5
6
5
6
Often
Always
14. How willing are you to get better at concentrating in class?
0
1
2
Not at all
3
4
Slightly
Quite
Very
1
2
Much
15. Which best reflects your attitude towards school?
-2
-1
Very negative
0
Negative
Neutral
Positive
Very
positive
16. How often do you procrastinate on finishing class assignments?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
Never
Sometimes
46
Often
Always
17. Which best reflects your attitude towards class assignments?
-2
-1
Very negative
0
Negative
1
Neutral
2
Positive
Very
positive
18. How willing are you to achieve higher GPA?
0
Not at all
1
2
Slightly
3
4
Quite
5
6
Very Much
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
47
Author Note
I would like to thank Professor Seiji Takaku for supporting this study as a faculty mentor
and principal investigator. I would also like to give my appreciation to all the student participants
at Soka University of America, Aliso Viejo for taking part in my experiment, thereby helping me
complete my research project.
Correspondence regarding the present research should be addressed to Thuy Mai Bui,
Soka University of America, 1 University Drive, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 (e-mail:
tbui@soka.edu).
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
48
Table 3
Effects of Dissonance-Induced Guilt Manipulation on Level of Guilt
Induced-guilt
Dependent variable
Guilt
Induced-pride
M
SD
M
SD
t(47.5)
2.90
1.73
.54
1.09
6.44***
Note. NInduced-guilt = 30, NInduced-pride = 35
***p < .001.
Table 4
Effects of Dissonance-Induced Guilt Manipulation on Main Dependent Variables
Induced-guilt
Induced-pride
Control
Dependent variable
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
F(2,117)
Attitude towards education
.43
.58
.41
.83
.36
.76
.116
Engagement
3.29
.94
3.56
1.12
3.17
.87
1.776*
Hours intend to spend
18.07
13.06
14.34
8.72
13.69
11.07
1.619*
studying
Note. Higher numbers indicate greater degree of each variable
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 5
Correlation Coefficients for Variables Entered in Bivariate Analysis (Induced-Guilt Condition)
1. Valuation of academic work
2. Hours intend to spend studying
1
2
3
4
__
.126
.414*
.149
.126
__
.326
.012
INDUCED GUILT & SELF-DIRECTED ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
3. Attitudes towards education
.414* .326
4. Engagement
.149
.012
__
.463**
.463**
__
49
Note. N = 30
*p <.05. **p < .01.
Table 6
Correlation Coefficients for Variables Entered in Bivariate Analysis (Induced-Pride Condition)
1
2
3
4
__
.332
.367*
.392*
2. Hours intend to spend studying
.332
__
.253
.221
3. Attitudes towards education
.367* .253
__
.247
4. Engagement
.392* .221
.247
__
1. Valuation of academic work
Note. N = 35
*p < .05.
Table 7
Correlation Coefficients for Variables Entered in Bivariate Analysis (Control Condition)
1
2
3
__
.222
.399**
.019
2. Hours intend to spend studying
.222
__
.254
.009
3. Attitudes towards education
.399** .254
__
-.091
4. Engagement
.019
1. Valuation of academic work
Note. N = 55
*p < .05. **p < .01.
.009
-0.91
4
__