Thesis (M.S.)--Ohio University, November, 2002. / Title from PDF t.p. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 76-81)

The primary purpose of the present study was to investigate the joint effects of culture and attribution of outcome feedback on reasoning performance. This study attempted to address four major research questions: (a) Do Canadian and Chinese students have different cultural values and causal attribution patterns? (b) Do pre-experimental individual differences in causal attribution patterns lead to differences in Canadian and Chinese students' inductive reasoning performance? (c) Does attribution of outcome feedback affect Canadian and Chinese students' inductive reasoning performance? (d) Do Canadian and Chinese students conduct deductive reasoning differently as a function of outcome feedback and reasoning task contents? A total of 120 college students (60 Canadian and 60 Chinese) performed three phases of computerized experimental tasks. The research design involved 2 types of culture groups (Canadian and Chinese) under 3 conditions of outcome feedback (success, failure, and control) as two independent variables. The dependent variables observed were the number of instances used or correct responses made and response time, when possible. In terms of culture differences, Canadian students appear to be distinct and articulate about the matters of socio-cultural values, while Chinese students are relatively less distinct and articulate. When making attribution for other people's success, both Canadian and Chinese students held internal factors (i. e., good effort and high ability) as responsible. When accounting for other people's failure, Canadian students picked controllable factors (i.e., lack of effort), while Chinese students picked both controllable and uncontrollable factors (i.e., largely lack of effort and occasionally difficult task) as the reasons. However, following the success outcome feedback about their own reasoning performance, Canadian students emphasized mostly high ability and, occasionally, effort as the reasons, while Chinese students picked mostly good luck and, occasionally, high ability. Given the failure outcome feedback about their own task performance, Canadian students attributed to lack of effort and bad luck as causes, while Chinese students exclusively picked lack of effort as the explanation. Chinese subjects' inductive and deductive reasoning performances remained relatively unswayed by success or failure outcome feedback, whereas Canadian subjects' reasoning performance remained good only when success feedback was received. When failure feedback was provided, Canadian subjects' reasoning performances deteriorated and remained poor throughout the experiment. While Chinese students' reasoning performance is not predictable from their low-ability attribution of other people's failure outcome, Canadian students' reasoning performance is highly predictable; that is, the more they attributed others' failure to low ability, the faster they completed the culture-fair inductive reasoning task. On the other hand, when making attribution based on their own experience, given success feedback, Canadian students attributed their performance to their high ability. Given failure feedback, Canadian students attributed their performance to their lack of effort, with improved performance commensurable to their verbal causal attribution. The present findings indicate that Canadian and Chinese college students showed differences in causal attribution patterns, depending on when they explain others' success/failure experiences or their own, and further that upon receipt of failure outcome feedback, Canadian students' reasoning performance deteriorated, while Chinese students' performance remained insensitive to success or failure outcome feedback. Further fine-grained analyses of such causal attribution patterns interacting with outcome feedbacks and cognitive performance needs some more careful studies.

The primary purpose of the present study was to investigate the joint effects of culture and attribution of outcome feedback on reasoning performance. This study attempted to address four major research questions: (a) Do Canadian and Chinese students have different cultural values and causal attribution patterns? (b) Do pre-experimental individual differences in causal attribution patterns lead to differences in Canadian and Chinese students' inductive reasoning performance? (c) Does attribution of outcome feedback affect Canadian and Chinese students' inductive reasoning performance? (d) Do Canadian and Chinese students conduct deductive reasoning differently as a function of outcome feedback and reasoning task contents? A total of 120 college students (60 Canadian and 60 Chinese) performed three phases of computerized experimental tasks. The research design involved 2 types of culture groups (Canadian and Chinese) under 3 conditions of outcome feedback (success, failure, and control) as two independent variables. The dependent variables observed were the number of instances used or correct responses made and response time, when possible. In terms of culture differences, Canadian students appear to be distinct and articulate about the matters of socio-cultural values, while Chinese students are relatively less distinct and articulate. When making attribution for other people's success, both Canadian and Chinese students held internal factors (i. e., good effort and high ability) as responsible. When accounting for other people's failure, Canadian students picked controllable factors (i.e., lack of effort), while Chinese students picked both controllable and uncontrollable factors (i.e., largely lack of effort and occasionally difficult task) as the reasons. However, following the success outcome feedback about their own reasoning performance, Canadian students emphasized mostly high ability and, occasionally, effort as the reasons, while Chinese students picked mostly good luck and, occasionally, high ability. Given the failure outcome feedback about their own task performance, Canadian students attributed to lack of effort and bad luck as causes, while Chinese students exclusively picked lack of effort as the explanation. Chinese subjects' inductive and deductive reasoning performances remained relatively unswayed by success or failure outcome feedback, whereas Canadian subjects' reasoning performance remained good only when success feedback was received. When failure feedback was provided, Canadian subjects' reasoning performances deteriorated and remained poor throughout the experiment. While Chinese students' reasoning performance is not predictable from their low-ability attribution of other people's failure outcome, Canadian students' reasoning performance is highly predictable; that is, the more they attributed others' failure to low ability, the faster they completed the culture-fair inductive reasoning task. On the other hand, when making attribution based on their own experience, given success feedback, Canadian students attributed their performance to their high ability. Given failure feedback, Canadian students attributed their performance to their lack of effort, with improved performance commensurable to their verbal causal attribution. The present findings indicate that Canadian and Chinese college students showed differences in causal attribution patterns, depending on when they explain others' success/failure experiences or their own, and further that upon receipt of failure outcome feedback, Canadian students' reasoning performance deteriorated, while Chinese students' performance remained insensitive to success or failure outcome feedback. Further fine-grained analyses of such causal attribution patterns interacting with outcome feedbacks and cognitive performance needs some more careful studies. / Education, Faculty of / Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education (ECPS), Department of / Graduate

published_or_final_version / Education / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

The aim of this investigation was to develop an Adjustment Assessment Instrument for Omani College Students. The adjustment instrument items were constructed and grouped into academic, family, social and personal adjustment areas common to Omani college students. The content validity of the adjustment instrument was determined by utilizing two Delphi panels. The first panel examined the instrument items which represented Omani students' adjustment areas. The second panel determined the instrument items' content domains and the appropriateness of their dimensions. The revised 190 item instrument was administered to 30 Omani Students at Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) in order to test the wording of the items and determine the actual time for the completion of the instrument. One item was dropped from the instrument leaving 189 items, including 70 positive and 119 negative items. The developed adjustment instrument was administered to 400 Omani students at SQU. Internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability for the developed instrument were investigated. The test-retest reliability was determined by administering the instrument to 37 subjects using two week intervals between the two tests. In addition to reliability consideration, construct validity was determined by examining (a) instrument dimensionality, (b) factor analysis, (c) item analysis, and (d) internal consistency. The results revealed that the developed adjustment instrument possessed high reliability estimation which was adequate for individual measurement. In addition, the results supported the construct validity of the instrument as an adjustment measure. The results of the correlation matrix of the developed four dimensions and of the inter-factor correlation of the adjustment questionnaire provided evidence for the multidimensionality of the instrument. Also, factor analysis results confirmed that the developed instrument consisted of four dimensions: academic, family, social and personal adjustment. Moreover, item-total correlation finalized the instrument, which included 58 items, of which 25 were positive and 32 negative. These items were retained as adjustment item statements for the final Adjustment Instrument for College Students. The results of the internal consistency measurements provided additional support for the construct validity of the final adjustment instrument. / Graduation date: 1997

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 2001. / Typescript (photocopy). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 150-158). Also available online.

With the increasing use of forgiveness interventions as therapy and educational programmes, a lot of studies have been conducted to investigate the effectiveness of the interventions. However, most of the existing intervention studies do not consider the cultural elements in forgiveness. The current study aimed to fill this gap by conducting research on forgiveness interventions in Chinese cultural context. The researcher devised a forgiveness programme by integrating the programme based on Enright-Process-Model with another programme based on Chinese cultural values. To examine the effects of the forgiveness programme on the participants’ forgiveness attitudes and other psychological variables, a 3-phase study design combining quantitative and qualitative approaches was adopted. In Phase I, the reliabilities and validities of the instruments (i.e., Decisional Forgiveness Scale, Emotional Forgiveness Scale, and Batson’s Empathy Adjectives) were examined with the sample of 194 college students (114 males and 80 females) in Nanjing. The instruments were used in the intervention studies (Phase II and Phase III). In Phase II study, two 4-session forgiveness programmes which were based on the Enright psycho-social process model and the Chinese cultural values respectively were conducted for 24 college students in Zhuhai. Based on both the quantitative and qualitative findings of the two brief programmes, a 10-session forgiveness programme integrating Chinese cultural values and the Enright Process Model was devised and implemented among 28 college students in Zhuhai (16 in experimental group and 12 in control group; 2 males and 26 females) in Phase III, the main study. The findings disclosed that gains in forgiveness attitudes in the experimental group were significantly higher than those in the control group. The improvement in the experimental group was maintained at the follow-up test after 3-month. Gains of state-anxiety in the experimental group, meanwhile, were marginally higher than those of the control group, while gains of empathy and self-esteem had no significant differences between groups. The qualitative findings further revealed the participants’ understandings of forgiveness and the strategies that influence forgiveness. The strategies facilitating forgiveness included engaging in perspective taking, taking self-responsibility, cultivating empathy, having positive thinking, and stopping rumination. In contrast, repeated offences, severe hurt experience from the offence, no apology from the offenders, and no continued relationship are perceived as factors that hinder the participants’ forgiveness. In addition, Chinese values of harmony and face were found to be pertinent factors influencing participants’ decision to forgive. The implications of the findings are discussed. Theoretically, the integration of the Enright Forgiveness Process Model and Chinese cultural values was effective in promoting forgiveness attitudes and psychological well-being with Chinese participants in the collectivist cultural setting. Practically, elements such as reconciliation need to be included in the forgiveness interventions with Chinese participants. Chinese educators are suggested to use the experiential psycho-social approach rather than the indoctrinatory approach to cultivate the value and strategies of forgiveness. The limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are also presented. / published_or_final_version / Education / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

No description available.

Thesis (M.S.)--Villanova University, 2009. / Psychology Dept. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph.D)--Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2010. / Committee Chair: Phillip L. Ackerman; Committee Chair: Ruth Kanfer; Committee Member: Gary J. Lautenschlager; Committee Member: Lawrence R. James; Committee Member: Richard Catrambone. Part of the SMARTech Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Collection.