دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 30142
عنوان فارسی مقاله

از شخصیت بنیادین تا انگیزش: ارتباط عوامل HEXACO برای اهداف پیشرفت

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
30142 2015 8 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید محاسبه نشده
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
From basic personality to motivation: Relating the HEXACO factors to achievement goals
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Learning and Individual Differences, Volume 40, May 2015, Pages 1–8

کلمات کلیدی
- شخصیت - صداقت - فروتنی - پنج - انگیزه - اهداف پیشرفت
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله از شخصیت بنیادین تا انگیزش: ارتباط عوامل HEXACO برای اهداف پیشرفت

چکیده انگلیسی

Associations between personality and motivation have been investigated using various operationalizations for both constructs, but no study so far has linked the HEXACO personality space to achievement goals. The aim of the present study was thus to explore relations between the HEXACO personality domains and achievement goals focusing particularly on Honesty–Humility. Participants were 173 high-school students with a mean age of 14.49 (SD = 1.04) years. Data were collected using questionnaires assessing the HEXACO personality inventory and students' mastery goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-avoidance goals for school in general. With few exceptions, findings were consistent with associations reported for the Big Five dimensions and achievement goals. Moreover, Honesty–Humility showed a distinct pattern of systematic relations with achievement goals, correlating positively with mastery goals and negatively with both performance-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals. Finally, relative weights analyses revealed that Honesty–Humility accounted for substantial proportions of explained variance in all achievement goals.

مقدمه انگلیسی

What are the relations between personality and motivation? There is ample research addressing this question in general and several studies doing so with regard to one of the most prominent constructs in motivation research – achievement goals – in particular. Yet, most of this literature draws on the classical five-factor model of personality, or the Big Five (e.g., McCrae & John, 1992). Although this model is still most widely accepted, recent work on personality structure has hinted that, across languages and cultures, a slight variation of some of the basic personality factors and addition of a sixth is actually more appropriate. These extensions of the five-factor approach are subsumed in the HEXACO model of personality that has been used increasingly in recent research — primarily because the new sixth factor, Honesty–Humility, has proved to be predictive regarding various criteria (for recent overviews, see Ashton et al., 2014 and Hilbig et al., 2014a). However, despite this growing interest in and evidence for the HEXACO model, educational researchers have only recently begun to examine corresponding personality dimensions in relation to learning and achievement in general. Indeed, the HEXACO model has been neglected altogether by scholars investigating individuals' motivation to learn and achieve in particular. The study reported in the following aims to fill this research gap.

نتیجه گیری انگلیسی

5. Results 5.1. Descriptive statistics Table 1 shows means, standard deviations, observed ranges and internal consistencies of the HEXACO domains and achievement goals as well as their zero-order correlations. Table 2 additionally reports descriptive statistics for the HEXACO facets and their correlations with achievement goals. Table 1. Means, standard deviations, ranges, and internal consistencies of the HEXACO personality domains and achievement goals as well as their intercorrelations. Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Honesty–Humility (.83) .24 .04 .37 .23 .17 .32 − .16 − .33 2 Emotionality (.83) − .06 .09 .11 .17 .18 .12 .06 3 Extraversion (.83) .08 .25 .09 .20 .05 − .24 4 Agreeableness (.77) .11 .04 .09 − .17 − .18 5 Conscientiousness (.85) .18 .41 .26 − .06 6 Openness to Experience (.71) .36 .18 .02 7 Mastery goals (.80) .37 − .03 8 Performance-approach goals (.78) .59 9 Performance-avoidance goals (.84) Mean 3.45 3.17 3.48 3.03 3.20 2.94 3.70 3.07 2.33 Standard deviation 0.62 0.60 0.56 0.50 0.61 0.51 0.65 0.72 0.80 Observed range 1.00–4.69 1.56–4.56 1.81–4.56 1.56–4.25 1.38–4.63 1.81–4.13 1.88–4.75 1.14–4.71 1.00–4.88 Possible range 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 Note. N = 173; coefficients in parentheses refer to internal consistencies (Cronbach's alphas); significant correlations in bold, with |r| ≥ .15, p < .05, |r| ≥ .20, p < .01, and |r| ≥ .24, p < .001. Table options Table 2. Means, standard deviations, ranges, and internal consistencies of the HEXACO personality domains and facets as well as their correlations with achievement goals. Variable M SD α Range Mas Pap Pav Observed Possible Honesty–Humility 3.45 0.62 .83 1.00–4.69 1.00–5.00 .32 − .16 − .33 Sincerity 3.19 0.71 .53 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 .26 − .12 − .30 Fairness 3.68 1.01 .77 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 .36 .08 − .13 Greed avoidance 3.12 0.86 .76 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 .09 − .27 − .28 Modesty 3.80 0.74 .64 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 .22 − .21 − .31 Emotionality 3.17 0.60 .83 1.56–4.56 1.00–5.00 .18 .12 .06 Fearfulness 2.69 0.84 .73 1.25–4.75 1.00–5.00 .04 − .02 .03 Anxiety 3.35 0.76 .59 1.50–5.00 1.00–5.00 .15 .12 .07 Dependence 3.17 0.86 .71 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 .07 .11 .10 Sentimentality 3.49 0.82 .72 1.25–5.00 1.00–5.00 .27 .16 − .01 Extraversion 3.48 0.56 .83 1.81–4.56 1.00–5.00 .20 .05 − .24 Social self-esteem 3.53 0.73 .66 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 .12 .07 − .21 Social boldness 3.22 0.84 .73 1.00–4.75 1.00–5.00 .12 .04 − .17 Sociability 3.60 0.66 .55 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 .09 − .05 − .14 Liveliness 3.56 0.79 .72 1.25–5.00 1.00–5.00 .25 .08 − .18 Agreeableness 3.03 0.50 .77 1.56–4.25 1.00–5.00 .09 − .17 − .18 Forgiveness 2.56 0.72 .58 1.00–4.75 1.00–5.00 − .04 − .14 − .10 Gentleness 3.35 0.61 .48 1.00–4.75 1.00–5.00 .14 − .11 − .11 Flexibility 3.11 0.72 .55 1.00–4.75 1.00–5.00 .10 − .13 − .17 Patience 3.10 0.72 .66 1.25–4.75 1.00–5.00 .05 − .11 − .12 Conscientiousness 3.20 0.61 .85 1.38–4.63 1.00–5.00 .41 .26 − .06 Organization 3.23 0.61 .69 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 .27 .20 − .03 Diligence 3.62 0.80 .76 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 .42 .20 − .10 Perfectionism 3.06 0.72 .58 1.75–5.00 1.00–5.00 .36 .23 − .07 Prudence 2.90 0.69 .66 1.00–4.25 1.00–5.00 .26 .18 .03 Openness to Experience 2.94 0.51 .71 1.81–4.13 1.00–5.00 .36 .18 .02 Aesthetic Appreciation 2.54 0.88 .68 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 .33 .12 − .04 Inquisitiveness 2.78 0.80 .50 1.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 .30 .09 .02 Creativity 3.40 0.76 .50 1.25–5.00 1.00–5.00 .24 .16 .02 Unconventionality 3.06 0.56 .15 2.00–5.00 1.00–5.00 .06 .11 .07 Note. N = 173; Mas = mastery goals, Pap = performance-approach goals, Pav = performance-avoidance goals; significant correlations printed in bold, with |r| ≥ .15, p < .05, |r| ≥ .20, p < .01, and |r| ≥ .24, p < .001. Table options Scales for the HEXACO domains showed satisfactory reliability (all αs ≥ .71) as did the scales for mastery goals (α = .80), performance-approach goals (α = .78), and performance-avoidance goals (α = .84). Intercorrelations among the HEXACO domains ranged from − .06 to .37 and were somewhat greater than those reported for the 60-item German-language version of the HEXACO Personality Inventory in samples of adults (cf. Moshagen, Hilbig, & Zettler, 2014).2 Intercorrelations among achievement goals ranged from − .03 to .59 as typical for the instrument and population (cf. Spinath et al., 2002 and Spinath et al., 2012). HH correlated positively with mastery goals and negatively with both performance-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals. EM correlated positively with mastery goals only. EX correlated positively with mastery goals and negatively with performance-avoidance goals. AG correlated negatively with performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals. CO and OP correlated positively with mastery goals and performance-approach goals. 5.2. Hierarchical regression analyses Regressing mastery goals on sex and grade level in the first step as well as on HH, EM, EX, AG, CO, and OP in the second step yielded no significant overall effect in the first step, R2 = .021, p = .164, indicating that there were no systematic differences in mastery goals depending on sex or grade level. Adding the HEXACO domains in the second step yielded a significant increment in explained variance, ΔR2 = .295, p < .001. HH, β = .22, p = .003, CO, β = .29, p < .001, and OP, β = .28, p < .001, significantly predicted mastery goals. Regressing performance-approach goals on sex and grade level in the first step as well as on HH, EM, EX, AG, CO, and OP in the second step likewise yielded no significant overall effect in the first step, R2 = .016, p = .250, indicating that there were no systematic differences in performance-approach goals depending on sex or grade level. Adding the HEXACO domains in the second step yielded a significant increment in explained variance, ΔR2 = .161, p < .001. Once more, HH, β = − .23, p = .006, CO, β = .28, p < .001, and OP, β = .16, p = .044, significantly predicted performance-approach goals. Regressing performance-avoidance goals on sex and grade level in the first step as well as on HH, EM, EX, AG, CO, and OP in the second step yielded no significant overall effect in the first step, R2 = .002, p = .857, indicating that there were also no systematic differences in performance-avoidance goals depending on sex or grade level. Adding the HEXACO domains in the second step yielded a significant increment in explained variance, ΔR2 = .189, p < .001. HH, β = − .35, p < .001, and EX, β = − .24, p = .002 significantly predicted performance-avoidance goals. 5.3. Relative weights analyses Table 3 shows the results from corresponding relative weights analyses. As can be seen, HH accounted for substantial proportions of variance in achievement goals explained by personality. In the prediction of performance-avoidance goals HH even explained more than half of the variance determined by students' personality. In contrast, relative weights analyses revealed EM to be of little importance in the prediction of achievement goals, with shares of explained criterion variance accounted for by this personality dimension not exceeding 10%. Finally, these analyses revealed CO as the strongest predictor for mastery goals and performance-approach goals. Table 3. Relative weights (RW) and percentage of explained criterion variance (% R2) for the HEXACO personality domains in predicting mastery goals (Mas), performance-approach goals (Pap), and performance-avoidance goals (Pav). Variable Mas Pap Pav RW % R2 RW % R2 RW % R2 Honesty–Humility .063 20.2 .036 20.6 .103 54.9 Emotionality .015 4.7 .017 9.6 .009 4.9 Extraversion .023 7.5 .002 1.1 .054 28.8 Agreeableness .003 0.9 .026 14.7 .016 8.7 Conscientiousness .116 37.5 .068 39.0 .002 1.2 Openness to Experience .090 29.2 .026 15.1 .003 1.5 Note. N = 173.

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.