RESEARCH ARTICLE The Pursuit Of Self-Esteem And Its Motivational .

8m ago
587.44 KB
26 Pages
Last View : 7m ago
Last Download : 1m ago
Upload by : Mia Martinelli

ψvan der Kaap-Deeder, J. et al (2016). The Pursuit of Self-Esteemand Its Motivational Implications. Psychologica Belgica, 56(3),RESEARCH ARTICLEThe Pursuit of Self-Esteem and ItsMotivational ImplicationsJolene van der Kaap-Deeder*†, Bram Deeren‡†,†*-N 641;N-Keywords:Research on self-esteem has mainly focusedon people’s level of self-esteem, which entailsthe overall positivity or negativity towardsthe self (Rosenberg, Schooler, Schoenbach,& Rosenberg, 1995). Increasingly, however,other aspects of individuals’ self-esteem,* Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences,Department of Developmental, Social, andPersonality Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent,Belgium†Faculty of Psychology and EducationalSciences, School Psychology and Child andincluding its contingency, have been foundto relate to adjustment (Heppner & Kernis,2011; Zeigler-Hill, 2013). Contingent selfesteem (CSE) denotes the extent to whichpeople base their self-worth on meeting certain internal or external standardsAdolescent Development, KU Leuven, Leuven,Belgium‡Jolene van der Kaap-Deeder, MSc()

van der Kaap-Deeder et al: Contingent Self-Esteem, Motivation, and Engagement(Deci & Ryan, 1995) and has been studied asboth a global (e.g., Kernis, 2003) and domainspecific (e.g., Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, &Bouvrette, 2003) characteristic. Althoughseveral studies found CSE to relate positivelyto maladjustment (e.g., Burwell & Shirk,2006; Lakey, Hirsch, Nelson, & Nsamenang,2014; Lawrence & Williams, 2013; Neighbors,Larimer, Geisner, & Knee, 2004), importantgaps remain. For instance, research concerning the motivational correlates of CSE isscarce. Yet, this may be particularly interesting, as students with elevated levels of CSEmay be highly motivated to do well, yet at thesame time their motivation may be fraughtwith feelings of inner tension, anxiety, andcompulsion. Hence, the present contributionaims to explore in greater detail the hypothesized motivational ambiguity comprised inCSE and whether such ambiguity would alsobe reflected in individuals’ emotional andbehavioral engagement and disaffection inachievement settings. Specifically, Study 1focused on the motivational, engagementand disaffection correlates of academic CSEin a sample of high school students. Study2 sought to complement Study 1 by examining the main effect of global CSE and itsinteraction with type of feedback in the prediction of several motivational and engagement-related outcomes during a specificexperimental task in a sample of universitystudents.Contingent Self-esteemCSE refers to individuals’ global or domainspecific tendency to hinge their self-esteemupon meeting certain internal or externalstandards (Deci & Ryan, 1995). Global CSE isonly moderately negatively correlated withglobal self-esteem (e.g., Wouters, Duriez, etal., 2013). This negative interrelation suggests that individuals with lower self-esteemlevels are more likely to have their self-worthinterwoven with the attainment of specificstandards. Paralleling this negative relation,self-esteem level and self-esteem contingency were found to yield opposite associations with adjustment, including well-being(Zeigler-Hill, 2013; Zeigler-Hill, Besser, &King, 2011), anxiety and eating disordersymptoms (Bos, Huijding, Muris, Vogel, &Biesheuvel, 2010), substance abuse (Chen,Ye, & Zhou, 2013; Tomaka, Morales-Monks, &Shamaley, 2013) and suicidal behavior (e.g.,Lakey et al., 2014).Although increasing research has indicated the detrimental effects of CSE for individuals’ adjustment, far less is known aboutthe motivational implications of CSE. To perceive themselves as good and worthy, individuals with higher levels of CSE constantlyneed to reach certain goals (Zeigler-Hill,Stubbs, & Madson, 2013). However, as everyone else, they will sometimes experiencefailure. Because failure with regard to selfrelated goals is closely tied to one’s worthas a person among individuals with a highlevel of CSE, such failure may not be easilydismissed (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). Hence,individuals high in CSE may be highly motivated (i.e., quantity of motivation) to pursuesuccess (and to avoid failure) in domains inwhich their self-esteem is invested (Lawrence& Williams, 2013). However, the type of reasons (i.e., quality of motivation) underlyingtheir efforts may not be completely positive as individuals high in CSE may striveto perform well for pressured reasons. Inthe current contribution, grounded in SelfDetermination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan,2000), we sought to shed a nuanced light onthe different types of motives underlying themotivational functioning of individuals highin CSE.The Motivational AmbiguityAssociated with ContingentSelf-esteemSDT distinguishes between different typesof motives that fall along a continuum ofincreasing self-endorsement or autonomy(Deci & Ryan, 2000; Vansteenkiste, Lens, &Deci, 2006). First, individuals may be motivated out of external pressures, such asmeeting demanding expectations, garneringsocial approval and controlling rewards oravoiding criticism. As the reason for activity

van der Kaap-Deeder et al: Contingent Self-Esteem, Motivation, and Engagementengagement is situated completely outsidethe individual, external regulation is characterized by a complete lack of self-endorsement. For instance, individuals might puteffort in their studies merely to please theirparents. Yet, the pressure may also comefrom internal forces, including the avoidanceof feelings of shame, guilt, and anxiety, aswell as the attainment of esteem. This formof motivation has been labeled introjectedregulation and seems especially characteristic of individuals high in CSE. Individualswho strive for an A to feel worthy andesteemed display introjected regulation.Although the motive is now internal to theperson, the activity engagement goes alongwith feelings of inner conflict and compulsion as the reason for performing the activityis not fully congruent with the person’s values and convictions. Although CSE and introjected regulation are conceptually related,CSE is considered to be a relatively stable personality characteristic (Deci & Ryan, 1995)and focuses more on the link between selfesteem and performance-outcomes (i.e., success versus failure). In contrast, introjectedregulation is a motivational subtype thatfocuses on the activity itself (i.e., why doesa person undertake a certain activity?) and,although introjected regulation can be concerned with self-esteem attainment, it alsoincludes other feelings that are more looselyrelated to the self (e.g., the avoidance ofguilt). As both external as well as introjectedregulation are characterized by pressure,these are often combined under the label ofcontrolled motivation (e.g., Vansteenkiste,Lens, Dewitte, De Witte, & Deci, 2004).Controlled motivation is contrasted withautonomous motivation, which also consistsof at least two subtypes. Identified motivation denotes the extent to which individuals identify with the self-importance of thebehavior and consider it as congruent withtheir own inner values. Individuals who puteffort in their school work as they perceivetheir studies to contribute to their professional and personal development exhibit. While the activity isinstrumental to achieve innerly held valuesin the case of identified regulation, the activity constitutes a source of enjoyment andinterest in itself in the case of intrinsic motivation. When students make their homeworkout of pure interest and curiosity, they aresaid to be intrinsically motivated. Both identified regulation and intrinsic motivationrepresent indicators of autonomous motivation as the reasons for engaging in the activity are fully endorsed by the individual’s self.These different types of motives can besituated and studied at three distinct levels,that is, in relation to a specific activity at aspecific moment (i.e., situational level), ina more global life domain, such as school(i.e., contextual level), or towards life in general (i.e., global level) (Vallerand, 1997). Inthis study, we focused on motivation at thesituational and contextual level. Previousresearch has provided evidence for the beneficial effects of autonomous study motivation and the fairly detrimental effects ofcontrolled study motivation among diversepopulations, differing in age, gender, andcultural background (Deci & Ryan, 2000;Lens & Vansteenkiste, 2006; Vansteenkiste& Ryan, 2013). Specifically, both intrinsicmotivation (Taylor et al., 2014) and identifiedmotivation (Burton, Lydon, D’Alessandro, &Koestner, 2006) have been found to relatepositively to school performance and persistence, while relating to less procrastinationamong (pre-)college students (Vansteenkiste,Zhou, Lens, & Soenens, 2005). In contrast,controlled motivation has been found torelate negatively to persistence and efficacious time planning among high school andcollege students (e.g., Michou, Vansteenkiste,Mouratidis, & Lens, 2014; Ratelle, Guay,Vallerand, Larose, & Senecal, 2007), whilebeing positively related to test anxiety amonghigh school students (Vansteenkiste, Sierens,Soenens, Luyckx, & Lens, 2009).Theoretically, CSE is assumed to relateprimarily to introjected regulation (Crocker& Wolfe, 2001; Deci & Ryan, 1995; Kernis,2003), although evidence for this claimis scarce and rather indirect. Specifically,

van der Kaap-Deeder et al: Contingent Self-Esteem, Motivation, and Engagementprevious experimental work on the effect oftask- versus ego-involvement on autonomyand intrinsic motivation (e.g., Ryan, 1982) isrelevant. In these studies, participants’ ego orself-esteem was primed prior to engaging ina specific task by suggesting the task is indicative of their creative or social intelligence.In doing so, participants’ task-specific CSEwas temporarily activated. Ryan, Koestner,and Deci (1991) found that the inductionof ego-involvement relative to task-involvement undermined college students’ senseof choice and autonomy. Moving beyondpast work, the present study investigatedthe relation between CSE and the varioustypes of motives as discerned within SDT bydirectly assessing these constructs. Althoughindividuals high in CSE would regulate theirlearning behavior primarily on the basis ofintrojection, the attachment of their selfworth to the outcome of their functioningmay also lead them to value the learningmore (i.e., identified regulation). At the sametime, the tension underlying their functionmay shift away their focus from the learningitself and preclude them to fully enjoy andget interested in the learning, thus potentially undermining their intrinsic motivation.Finally, Wouters, Doumen, Germeijs, Colpin,and Verschueren (2013) found that psychologically controlling parenting (i.e., characterized by pressure from parents on childrento think, feel, or act in certain ways) relatedto higher levels of CSE among early adolescents. Therefore, individuals high in CSE maybe motivated more out of perceived externalpressure.The Engagement AmbiguityAssociated with ContingentSelf-esteemIn analogy to the presumed motivationalambiguity characteristic of CSE, we expecteda similar mixed pattern for engagement.In line with the multidimensional natureof engagement (Fredericks, Blumenfeld, &Paris, 2004; Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, &Kindermann, 2008), this study focused onfour important dimensions of classroomengagement: (1) behavioral engagement,(2) emotional engagement, (3) behavioraldisaffection, and (4) emotional disaffection. Engagement refers to adaptive motivational states with behavioral engagementreferring to effort exertion and persistenceduring learning, on-task behavior and participation in learning activities and emotional engagement referring to positiveand energized emotions during learning(e.g., enthusiasm, interest and enjoyment;Skinner, Kindermann, & Furrer, 2009).Disaffection, on the contrary, reflects thepresence of maladaptive motivational statesand, as such, this concept is broader than thesheer absence of engagement. Analogouswith engagement, disaffection also consistsof two components: behavioral disaffection(e.g., passive behavior during learning activities) and emotional disaffection (e.g., negative emotions such as anxiety; Skinner et al.,2008). Previous research has found engagement and disaffection to yield, respectively, apositive and negative relation to school success (Skinner et al., 2008).To the best of our knowledge, there arecurrently no studies directly linking CSE tobehavioral or emotional engagement anddisaffection. However, there is some researchpointing to links between CSE and variablesrelated to engagement. Concerning behavioral engagement, the higher students’ levels of academic CSE the more hours theyspent studying and looking at solutionsto analytical problems they had to solve(Crocker, Brook, Niiya, and Villacorta, 2006;Crocker, Luhtanen, et al., 2003). Yet, the perseverance of individuals high in CSE may beshaky and conditional. Indeed, the experimental induction of ego-involvement (i.e.,a momentary state of CSE), only resulted incontinued behavioral persistence during afree-choice period if participants receivedno or non-confirmative feedback, while thepersistence faded if they had received positive feedback (Ryan et al., 1991). Presumably,prompting participants’ ego only fosters persistence when participants’ desired outcome(i.e., performing successfully as indicated by

van der Kaap-Deeder et al: Contingent Self-Esteem, Motivation, and Engagementpositive feedback) is not yet achieved, whiletheir persistence wanes quickly if they doachieve their desired outcome, underscoring its conditional character. Consistent withthis interpretation, Van Wijhe, Peeters, andSchaufeli (2014) showed that individualswhose self-esteem highly depends on workachievements, felt compelled by themselvesto work hard, being indicative of persistence, yet of the internally pressuring sort(see also Van den Broeck, Schreurs, De Witte,Vansteenkiste, Germeys, & Schaufeli, 2011).Overall then, individuals high in CSE woulddisplay a mix of both behavioral engagementand disaffection.Furthermore, with regard to emotionaldisaffection, Lawrence and Williams (2013)demonstrated that, in an evaluative setting,undergraduate students with higher levels ofacademic CSE reported higher levels of testanxiety. Further, students high on academicCSE were found to suffer more from bad gradesin terms of self-esteem and positive affect thanthey benefitted from good grades, indicating that these students are more sensitive tofailure in the academic domain and thus maybe more anxious in an achievement setting(Crocker, Karpinski, Quinn, & Chase, 2003).The Present ResearchThe primary aim of the present contribution was to examine the motivational andengagement correlates of CSE. Overall,because individuals high in CSE wouldbe highly committed to the activity yetalso emotionally more tense and conflicted about their activity engagement, weexpected CSE to relate to a mixed patternof motivational and engagement outcomes.An additional aim was to explore the conditions under which CSE would especiallyyield a harmful or rather benign effect byexamining whether (a) there is an optimalpoint in CSE (i.e., curvilinear relation), (b)effects of CSE would depend on level of selfesteem (i.e., an interaction effect), and (c)the harmful correlates of CSE would especially become salient under negative feedback circumstances.To this end, a cross-sectional and an experimental study were conducted among, respectively, high school and university students.Whereas Study 1 focused on the contextual level of CSE, motivation, and engagement (i.e., school) and focused on a varietyof engagement and disaffection indicators,Study 2 focused on the situational level(i.e., task-specific) with regard to motivationand engagement, involved an experimentalmanipulation of feedback type (i.e., positiveor negative), and included an objectivelyrecorded indicator of behavioral engagement. Further, while Study 1 focused onacademic CSE, Study 2 included a measureof global CSE. We chose to assess global CSEin Study 2, as the task (i.e., puzzle task) didnot directly relate to a specific domain (e.g.,academic, social).Study 1Study 1 was conducted among a large sampleof high school students in their second year.We chose to focus on these students as theyneed to make important track and subjectchoices when transitioning from Grade 8 toGrade 9. Apart from including diverse motivational and engagement subtypes, we alsoincluded a separate measure for test anxiety,which has been found to yield various negative consequences for students’ learning andperformance (Zeidner & Matthews, 2005).The following set of three hypotheses andtwo research questions was formulated. First,the hypothesized motivational ambiguity ofCSE would manifest through its positive relation with introjected, identified regulationand external regulation, and a negative relation with intrinsic motivation (Hypothesis 1).That is, while CSE would relate primarily toan internally pressuring form of regulation(i.e., introjected), it would also relate to identified regulation, as CSE goes together witha high commitment to the activity (Crocker,Luhtanen, et al., 2003; Lawrence & Williams,2013). Further, as CSE is characterized by thefeeling that one’s worth is at stake in achievement-settings, we expected that this tensionmay preclude individuals from fully enjoying

van der Kaap-Deeder et al: Contingent Self-Esteem, Motivation, and Engagementlearning (i.e., a negative relation betweenCSE and intrinsic motivation). Finally, as CSEhas been found to relate to controlling parenting, individuals high in CSE may pursueacademic goals more out of perceived external pressures (i.e., external regulation).Second, the hypothesized engagementambiguity of CSE would manifest itselfthrough its positive relation with behavioralengagement and emotional disaffection, anda negative relation with emotional engagement (Hypothesis 2). That is, although individuals high in CSE would be inclined todisplay a high level of behavioral engagement to preserve or increase their self-worth,their activity engagement would come withfeelings of pressure, (test) anxiety, and frustration, thus coming along with emotionaldisaffection. We further expected that thesenegative feelings would be so heavily presentthat individuals high in CSE would fail to display any emotional engagement. It is unclearwhether these dynamics would also apply toindividuals’ behavioral disaffection. Hence,the relation with behavioral disaffection wasexamined exploratively.Third, the simultaneous inclusion of bothmotivational and engagement variablesallowed us to examine whether motivationwould account for (i.e., mediate) the relationbetween CSE and engagement (Hypothesis3). For instance, the hypothesized positiverelation between CSE and emotional disaffection may be carried by introjected regulation, while the hypothesized positive relationwith behavioral engagement may be carriedby identified regulation. Finally, we exploredwhether CSE would be less harmful whenindividuals experienced a moderate levelof CSE (as opposed to a low or high level)(Research Question 1). More specifically, a lowlevel of CSE could be regarded as an indicatorof a careless attitude, whereas a high level ofCSE might cause an overdose of internal pressure. In other words, a moderate level of CSEwould represent the ideal point. Further, weexplored whether the link between CSE andmotivation/engagement was moderated bythe level of self-esteem (Research Question2). Some previous studies found evidencefor this notion with the detrimental effectsof CSE being especially pronounced whencombined with low levels of self-esteem (e.g.,Bos et al., 2010), whereas others did not (e.g.,Wouters, Duriez, et al., 2013). To investigatethe unique effects of CSE above and beyondthe level of self-esteem, we always controlledfor level of self-esteem in both studies.MethodParticipants and ProcedureSeveral high schools in the Dutch-speakingpart of Belgium were invited to participatein a study examining students’ transitionfrom Grade 8 to Grade 9. Seventy schoolswere chosen to ensure representativenesswith regard to educational network (private(mainly Catholic) versus public education),geographical location and educational level;35 schools eventually agreed to participate.From each school, one class was randomlyselected to participate. Before students filledout the questionnaire, they signed a standard consent form which informed them thatthey could refuse or discontinue participation at any time. A total of 641 studentsagreed to participate; passive parental consent for all these students was obtained a fewweeks prior to the study. Students completedonline questionnaires in the computer roomof their school during a collective sessionsupervised by Psychology bachelor students.The survey was divided into two parts, whichwere presented in random order to studentsbelonging to the same class as to avoid ordereffects. The mean age in this sample was14.06 years (SD 0.64; range 10 to 17 years;11.1% missing values), with most participants being female (54.1% female and 2.3%missing values).MeasuresAll items were answered in Dutch on a Likerttype scale ranging from 1 (Does not apply tome at all) to 5 (Completely applies to me),unless indicated otherwise.Academic Contingent Self-Esteem.Academic CSE was measured with four itemsfrom the academic subscale of the Self-WorthContingency Questionnaire (Burwell & Shirk,

van der Kaap-Deeder et al: Contingent Self-Esteem, Motivation, and Engagement2003; Wouters, Doumen, et al., 2013). Weselected these four items from the total8-item subscale because they had the highest loadings on the factor academic CSE inanother dataset consisting of adolescents(Wouters, Doumen, et al., 2013). A sampleitem is: “Whether or not I reach my goals inschool strongly affects my feelings of worth”.Internal consistency of the scores was good( .87).Academic Self-Esteem. To measure academic self-concept, students filled out threeitems from an adapted subscale of the SelfDescription Questionnaire (SDQ) II (Marsh,1992). A sample item is: “Most school subjects are just too hard for me”. Internal consistency was sufficient ( .66).Motivation. The quality of students’ motivation in the academic domain (i.e., theirmotives for studying) was assessed with theDutch adapted version (Vansteenkiste etal., 2009) of the Academic Self-RegulationQuestionnaire (SRQ-A) developed by Ryanand Connell (1989). This questionnairemeasures four motivational types with eachfour items: intrinsic motivation (“I’m studying because I enjoy doing it”; .86), identified regulation (“I’m studying because this isan important life goal to me”; .79), introjected regulation (“I’m studying becauseI would feel guilty if I wouldn’t do so”; .70), and external regulation (“I’m studyingbecause others (parents, friends, etc.) forceme to do this”; .68).Engagement. Students’ levels of behavioral and emotional engagement and disaffection were measured with the Dutchtranslated version (Verschueren & Wouters,2012) of the engagement scales developed bySkinner et al. (2008). Sample items are “I tryhard to do well in school” (behavioral engagement; 5 items; .83), “I enjoy learning newthings in class” (emotional engagement; 5items; .83), “In class, I do just enough toget by” (behavioral disaffection; 5 items; .80), and “When I’m doing work in class, I feelbored” (emotional disaffection; 12 items; .82). Items were rated on a scale rangingfrom 1 (Not true at all) to 4 (Completely true).All subscales were internally consistent.Test anxiety. Test anxiety was assessedwith a subscale consisting of eight itemsfrom a Dutch questionnaire concerningstudy management abilities (Depreeuw &Lens, 1998). A sample item is “During theschool year, I feel very tense when I study”.This scale was internally consistent ( .81).Plan of AnalysesFor the present set of main variables, only2.79% of the data at the scale level were missing. Participants with and without completedata were compared using Little’s (1988)Missing Completely At Random (MCAR) test.This resulted in a normed chi square (i.e., ²/df) of 1.69, which suggests that values weremissing at random. Hence, we used the FullInformation Maximum Likelihood (FIML)procedure (Schafer & Graham, 2002) inMplus 6.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2010).Standard fit indices were used to evaluateall models. For adequate fit, the Root MeanSquare Error of Approximation (RMSEA)and the Standardized Root Mean squareResidual (SRMR) less than or equal to .08, theComparative Fit Index (CFI) equal to or largerthan .90; acceptable fit was also indicated bya ²/df ratio of 2 or below (Hu & Bentler,1999; Kline, 2005). To test the significanceof indirect effects, we used bootstrapping(using 1,000 draws), a nonparametric resampling procedure that is highly recommended(Preacher & Hayes, 2008). We did not consider multilevel modeling or controlling forclustering in schools for several reasons: (1)the average ICC was very small .03 (ICC’sranged from .00 to .06)1, (2) all design effectswere below 2, and (3) we had no variablesavailable at the school level (Peugh, 2010).ResultsDescriptive Statistics and PreliminaryAnalysesTable 1 presents all means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations. The level andthe contingency of self-esteem were slightlypositively correlated and they were positivelyrelated to all types of motivation, except forthe negative correlation between academicself-esteem and external regulation. Further,

18***.41***2.971.045. Introjected regulation6. External regulation7. Behavioral engagement8. Emotional engagement9. Behavioral disaffection10. Emotional disaffection11. Test �.37***.43***.44***.02.47***4Table 1: Descriptives of and Correlations between the Variables (Study 1).Note. CSE Contingent self-esteem, SE Self-esteem.*p .05. **p .01. ***p 33***.39***4. Identified regulation.26***–.35***.09*–23. Intrinsic motivation2. Academic SE1. Academic 3.47***10–0.822.7611150van der Kaap-Deeder et al: Contingent Self-Esteem, Motivation, and Engagement

van der Kaap-Deeder et al: Contingent Self-Esteem, Motivation, and Engagementcontingency and level of SE were both positively related to behavioral and emotionalengagement, while being negatively relatedto behavioral disaffection. Additionally, academic CSE was positively related to emotional disaffection and test anxiety, whereasacademic self-esteem was negatively relatedto these outcomes. As for the motivationalvariables, their intercorrelations followed asimplex pattern, with motivational subtypesbeing closer to each other on the continuumof increasing autonomy (e.g., intrinsic andidentified) being more strongly correlatedthan subtypes being positioned further away(e.g., intrinsic and external). This simplex pattern was also evident in the pattern of correlations between the motivational subtypesand the various engagement indicators andtext anxiety: The two autonomous forms ofregulation were similarly related to engagement (positively) and disaffection (negatively), whereas external regulation was onlypositively related to disaffection. The correlates of introjection, the subtype situatedbetween identified and external regulation,sometimes mirrored those of autonomousregulations and sometimes those of externalregulation. Although all motivational subtypes related positively to test anxiety, thisrelation was stronger for the two controlledforms of regulation.Finally, significant sex differences werefound with an independent samples t-test(with Levene’s test for testing the equality ofthe variances) for academic CSE, t (616.72) –2.47, p .05, identified regulation, t (624) –2.47, p .05, behavioral disaffection,t (602) 2.91, p .01, and test anxiety, t(620) –2.67, p .01. More specifically, girlsreported more academic CSE (M 3.06, SD 1.09), more identified regulation (M 3.48,SD 0.94), more test anxiety (M 2.84, SD 0.81), and less behavioral disaffection (M 2.10, SD 0.60) than boys (M 2.86, SD 0.98, M 3.30, SD 0.93, M 2.67, SD 0.83, and M 2.25, SD 0.67 respectively).In light of these gender effects, gender wascontrolled for in all models (only significantgender effects were retained).Primary Analyses151In a first model2, we looked at the uniquecontribution of academic CSE and academicself-esteem in the prediction of all fourmotivation types (all motivation types wereallowed to correlate). The fit of this modelwas excellent ( ²/df 6.23/5 1.25, p .28,RMSEA .02, 90% CI RMSEA [.00–.06], CFI 1.00, SRMR .01, N 626). Controlling foracademic self-esteem level, results showedthat academic CSE was positively related toall types of motivation ( intrinsic .33, p .001; .37, p .001; introjected .40, p .001; .20, p .001).externalIn two following models, we investigatedthe unique contribution of academic CSE andacademic self-esteem to indicators of, respectively, engagement and disaffection (all outcomes were allowed to correlate in eachmodel). Model fit was good in both models(engagement model: ²/df 2.49/3 0.83, p .48, RMSEA .00, 90% CI RMSEA [.00–.06],CFI 1.00, SRMR .01, N 626; disaffectionmodel: ²/df 3.72/2 1.86, p .16, RMSEA .04, 90% CI RMSEA [.00–.10], CFI 1.00,SRMR .01, N 626). Controlling for selfesteem level, CSE was positively related tobehavioral ( .28, p .001) and emotionalengagement ( .19, p .001). Further, CSEwas unrelated to behavioral disaffection ( –.07, p .06), but positively related to emotional disaffe

global self-esteem (e.g., Wouters, Duriez, et al., 2013). This negative interrelation sug-gests that individuals with lower self-esteem levels are more likely to have their self-worth interwoven with the attainment of specific standards. Paralleling this negative relation, self-esteem level and self-esteem contin-

Related Documents:

May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)

On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.

̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions

Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được

Amendments to the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 Article I Article II Article III Article IV Article V Article VI Article VII Article VIII Article IX Article X Article XI Article XII Article XIII Article XIV Article I: Declaration of Rights Election Ballot # Author Bill/Act # Amendment Sec. Votes for % For Votes Against %

Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.

Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. 3 Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.

MARCH 1973/FIFTY CENTS o 1 u ar CC,, tonics INCLUDING Electronics World UNDERSTANDING NEW FM TUNER SPECS CRYSTALS FOR CB BUILD: 1;: .Á Low Cóst Digital Clock ','Thé Light.Probé *Stage Lighting for thé Amateur s. Po ROCK\ MUSIC AND NOISE POLLUTION HOW WE HEAR THE WAY WE DO TEST REPORTS: - Dynacó FM -51 . ti Whárfedale W60E Speaker System' .