ABSTRACT

A CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF SELF-PERCEPTION AMONG AMERICAN AND CHINESE SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

by Jianxiang Yang

Self-perception of school-aged students has a strong interaction with their academic achievement, social relationship, and emotional well-being. The present study explores the grade, gender, and cultural difference in self-perception among Chinese and American students using a Cultural-Probe-Approach self-perception instrument that incorporates values emphasized by both American and Chinese cultures. Self-report data were acquired from 77 American students and 510 Chinese students from grades 4, 6, 8, and 10. The results display some revealing grade, gender, and cultural differences in students’ self-perception at overall and domain-specific levels. Implications for education and mental health services are also discussed.

A CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON OF SELF-PERCEPTION

AMONG AMERICAN AND CHINESE SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

A Thesis

Submitted to the

Faculty of Miami University

in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Education Specialist

Department of Educational Psychology

by

Jianxiang Yang

Miami University

Oxford, Ohio 45056

2007

Advisor Aimin Wang, Ph.D.

Reader Doris Bergen, Ph.D.

Reader David Shriberg, Ph.D.

Reader Gary W. Peterson, Ph.D.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables iv List of Figures v Acknowledgement vi Introduction 1 Literature Review 2 Historical Context and Definition of Self-Perception 2 Self-Efficacy and Self-Regulation 3 Self-Esteem 4 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Measurement Models 5 Measures of Self-Perception 5 The Impact of Self-Perception 7 Age Difference of Self-Perception 7 Gender Difference of Self-Perception 8 Cultural Difference in Global and Domain-Specific Self-Perception 9 Present Study 10 Methodology 12 Participants 12 Materials 12 Procedures 13 Results 14 Grade Difference in Overall Self-Perception 17 Grade Difference in Domain-Specific Self-Perception 19 Gender Difference 20 Cultural Difference 21

ii

Discussion and conclusions 25 Cultural Difference 25 Grade Difference 25 Gender Difference 28 Implications 28 Limitations 29 Future Researches 30 Summary 31 References 32 Appendices 36 Survey: How Much Is That Like You? (English) 36 Survey: How Much Is That Like You? (Chinese) 39 Parental Consent Form 42

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Numbers of participants from U.S. and China 12 Table 2: Descriptive statistics of American students’ self-perception scores 14 Table 3: Descriptive statistics of Chinese students’ self-perception scores 16 Table 4: The main effect and interactions of the mix multi-analysis of variance 17 Table 5: Means, standard deviations, and grade difference of students’ overall 18 self-perception Table 6: Grade difference in overall self-perception among American and 19 Chinese students Table 7: Grade difference in domain-specific self-perception 19 Table 8: Means, standard deviations, and gender difference of overall 20 self-perception among American and Chinese students Table 9: Gender difference by grades in overall self-perception among 21 American and Chinese students Table 10: Means, standard deviations, and Cultural difference in domain-specific 22 self-perception among American and Chinese students

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Example item from the Self-Perception Profile for Children 6 Figure 2: Grade difference of students’ overall self-perception 18 Figure 3: Grade difference in overall self-perception among American and 18 Chinese students Figure 4: Grade differences of self-perception in domains of group orientation, 20 schoolwork, and social relationships with adults Figure 5: Gender difference in overall self-perception among American and 21 Chinese students Figure 6 Gender difference by grades in overall self-perception among 21 American and Chinese students Figure 7: Cultural difference in domain-specific self-perception among American 22 and Chinese students Figure 8: Cultural and grade differences in domain-specific self-perception. 23

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The completion of my thesis would not have been possible without the guidance, support, and encouragement of many people.

I am grateful to my advisor, Dr. Aimin Wang, for his enlightening guidance in the initial project planning and design stage as well as his help with translating data into meaningful interpretations. Working with Dr. Wang as his graduate assistant these past years has been a valuable learning experience for me in general and for my thesis development.

I would like to offer thanks to the members on my committee. Dr. Doris Bergen’s high expectations and intriguing questions helped me think through my research project. Dr. David Shriberg and Dr. Gary Peterson were always there to meet and talk about my ideas, to proofread and mark up my chapters, and to share their in-depth understanding of cross-cultural research.

I would like to extend my appreciation for the expertise, patience, support, and dedication that all my committee members offered during the process of my thesis development. Special thanks for reviewing my work on a very short notice.

My thanks also go to my friends and colleagues, Julie Speelman and Mingzhu Xia, for their altruism in offering their time and resources to help me complete my data collection and data analysis.

Last, but not least, I thank my family members and friends for their unconditional support and encouragement.

vi

Chapter I INTRODUCTION

During the recent decades, diversity in the student population in the United States has been discussed with significant intensity in both the current research literature and scholarship on educational practices (e.g. Zhang, N. & Dixon, D. N., 2003; Peavy, R. V. & Li, H. Z., 2003; Constantine, M. G. & Gushue, G. V., 2003; Tarver Behring, S., Cabello, B., Kushida, D. & Murguia, A., 2000; Ingraham, C. L., 2000; Pope, R. L.; Reynolds, A. L. & Mueller, J. A., 2004). The U. S. Department of Education’s latest report (2005) revealed that 42 percent of public school students were racial or ethnic minorities in 2003, markedly up from 22 percent in 1972. As the schools become increasingly diverse, cultural competence is emphasized in every aspect of school psychological service delivery (National Association of School Psychologists, 2005). The self-perception of school-aged students has been an additional major area of concern in school mental health service due to the interaction among academic achievement, social interaction, and the emotional well-being of children and adolescents (e.g. Bandura, 1977; Bednar & Peterson, 1995; Harter, 1981; Harter & Marold, 1991). It is generally acknowledged that the way students perceive themselves performing competently in school, with friends, and with family may have great implications for their psychological health. The present study employed a self-perception scale adopting a Cultural Probe Approach (Wang, 2005). Data were collected from students in the 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th grades who resided in the United States and China. This study intended to explore potential cultural differences in global self-perception as well as across its specific domains. Another objective was to investigate the potential gender and age differences in self-perception among the secondary school students sampled for this study.

1

Chapter II LITERATURE REVIEW

Historical Context and Definition of Self-Perception Questions about the nature of the self goes back to the ancient Greeks, when the distinction between physical and nonphysical aspects of human functioning led philosophers to speculate about the nature of consciousness, thought, and knowledge. The awareness of people’s own thinking suggests not only a nonphysical self that does the thinking but also a physical being in which the thinking self resides (Strauss & Goethals, 1991). The complexity of the thinking self makes self-perception one of the most popular ideas in psychological literature. The ERIC database includes over 6000 entries under the "self- perception" descriptor. Unfortunately, self-perception is also a poorly defined construct. Terms such as "self-perception", “self-concept”, "self-esteem", "self-worth", "self-acceptance" and so on are often used interchangeably and inconsistently, when they may relate to different ideas about how people view themselves. Accordingly, definition is the first consideration for the presented study. The self- perception in this study refers to the self-awareness and self-evaluation of the various social, physical, academic, and intellectual characteristics that constitute a person as a social being. In conceptualizing the roots of the perceived self, theorists have invoked two distinct traditions: the first being a focus on self-appraisals and a second being a focus on reflected appraisals (Harter & Marold, 1991). For William James (1892), the evaluative portion of the self, one’s self-esteem, reflected the ratio of one’s successes to one’s pretensions to be successful. Thus, if one’s successes were commensurate with one’s pretensions, high self-esteem would result. Conversely, if one’s aspirations exceeded one’s perceived level of success, low self- esteem would ensue. Cooley (1902)’s major contribution, the self as reflected appraisals, was the general notion that self-conception grew out of social interaction. As children develop, they acquire the capacity to reflect on how other people view themselves. Children would increasingly imagine others’ view, and though their perceptions of other’s viewpoints might not be accurate, they were nevertheless important. Cooley proposed that children develop a “looking glass self”, or a reflected appraisal based on others’ imagined appraisal. A person’s self becomes what and how

2

he/she imagines that others perceive him/her to be, e.g. their appearance, aims, deeds, character, and so on. Thus, people who imagine that others view them negatively will adopt a negative view of themselves. Erikson (1968) also proposed that people form an ego-identities during adolescence on the basis of how others perceive them and how they perceive themselves compared to others who are relevant to them.

Self-Efficacy and Self-Regulation In an attempt to understand children’s self-perception, much can be learned from Albert Bandura’s social learning theory. Bandura (1986) argued that global self-conception did not adequately capture the complexity of self-efficacy perceptions. Self efficacy theory therefore emphasizes that efficacy varies across activities and circumstances (Bandura, 1999). Self- efficacy is enhanced or decreased through performance accomplishments or failures, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal (Bandura, 1977). The principles of Bandura’s social learning theory include vicarious, symbolic, and self regulatory processes in psychological functioning (Bandura, 1977). Cognitive structures such as perception, evaluation, and regulation of behaviors bring some unity and consistency to personality. People first observe and symbolize their own behavior in order to evaluate it. Next, their memories of reinforced or nonreinforced past behavior along with anticipated future consequences can then be used as the bases of evaluation. Finally, once this cognition is used as a reference point then self-regulation can be exercised (Bandura, 1997). These processes play a critical role in self-regulation, which enables people to manipulate their environment. According to Bandura, most human behavior is self-regulated. People set performance standards, and if the standards are met by the person then self-reinforcement is experienced. Self- punishment is experienced by the person who does not meet their own standards. A person’s perceived self-efficacy influences his or her self-regulated behavior (Bandura, 1999), which is a complicated way of specifying that how a person views what he or she is capable of doing (efficacy) will affect his or her self-regulated behavior. Accurate appraisal of one’s capabilities is important in successful functioning. A person with accurate and adequate self-efficacy tries harder, does more, persists longer, and is not as anxious as a person with low perceived self-efficacy. If a person has misjudgments of personal

3

efficacy in either direction (higher or lower), then there is a consequence. A person’s perceived self-efficacy affects coping, inhibition, effort extended, and persistence (Bandura, 1977).

Self-Esteem Self-esteem is a widely used concept both in popular language and in psychology. It refers to an individual's sense of his or her value or worth, or the extent to which a person values, approves of, appreciates, prizes, or likes him or herself (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). Self- esteem is generally considered the evaluative component of the self-perception. William James explicitly addressed the meaning of self-esteem in his famous and historical formula: Self- Esteem = Success / Pretensions. Thus, one’s feelings of worth were determined by the ratio of one’s actual accomplishments to one’s supposed potentials (James, 1892). The dimension of achievement, therefore, was implicit in James’ concept of self-esteem (Harter, 1983). The affective components of self-esteem have been highlighted in classic literature on this topic. For example, James (1892) and Cooley (1902) both believed that emotions aroused by one’s self-definition, e.g. pride and vanity, shame and mortification, were critical components of the self-evaluative process. Horney (1945) stated that self-demeaning feelings are at the root of one’s basic anxiety. Adler (1927) believed that one’s sense of inferiority, as a result of organ deficiencies and bodily weaknesses, was the major threat to self-esteem. Coopersmith’s (1967) widely quoted investigations of children’s self-esteem provides an equally vague example of the construct definition: “By self-esteem we refer to the evaluation which the individual makes and customarily maintains with regard to himself; it expresses an attitude of approval or disapproval, and indicates the extent to which the individual believes himself to be capable, significant, successful, and worthy. In short, self-esteem is a personal judgment of worthiness that is expressed in the attitudes the individual holds toward himself” (p. 5). The vagueness of the definition of self-esteem makes it difficult to clearly specify an operational definition of self-esteem. The potpourri of items included in various self-esteem scales is a reflection of the failure to clearly define this construct (Harter, 1983). Certain self- esteem measures concentrate heavily on skills and achievements, whereas others include items tapping morality, physical appearance, likeability, and acceptance by parents. While certain items are couched in specific evaluative language, for example, “I am good at schoolwork,”

4

others merely describe behavioral tendencies from which evaluative inferences must be made, for example, “I cry easily” or “I spend a lot of time daydreaming.” Moreover, there is generally a mix with regard to how items are worded. Some items are phrased as activities or behaviors, whereas others refer to observable characteristics, trait labels, perceived responses of others toward the self, subjectively experienced affects, and inner thoughts (Harter, 1983).

Unidimensional and Multidimensional Measurement Models In view of the potpourri in the definition of one’s perception towards himself or herself, there was an earlier tendency to focus on global self-regard (i.e., overall self-esteem, self- acceptance, self-ideal congruence) much more than on distinctive aspects or dimensions of self- concept (Wylie, 1989). The very general questions of these global scales (e.g. Coopersmith, 1967; Rosenberg, 1979) were designed to allow each person to account for these specific self- evaluations in his or her own way as factors that contribute to overall self-esteem. At present, however, researchers view multidimensional models as more adequate (e.g. Harter, 1999; Shavelson & Marsh, 1986) because unidimensional models are thought to mask distinctions that individuals make about their domain-specific attributes. Consequently, a number of scales were developed to measure the feelings of self-competence in specific domains, as well as overall self-worth (e.g. Harter, 1983, 1985; Piers, 1984). It is generally accepted that each individual’s overall self-worth is determined by a combination of self-conceptions and self- evaluations concerning separate aspects of self and the significance that each individual assigns to each domain (Wylie, 1989). The following are two commonly utilized self-perception scales.

Measures of Self-Perception Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale. Designed for children aged 8-18 years, the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale (PH) (Piers, 1984) comprises 80 first-person statements to be answered “Yes” or “No”. The total score forms an index of overall self-esteem. There are also six cluster scales namely: Behavior, Intellectual and School Status, Physical Appearance and Attributes, Anxiety, Popularity, and Happiness and Satisfaction (Piers, 1984). The self-concept, according to Piers, has both global and specific components, and the “importance of each area determines the degree to which success and failure affect overall self- evaluation” (p. 43). Piers did not aim to choose subsets of items that would discriminately

5

measure distinct domains of self-perception. Instead, it was only after the PH was published that she and others conducted factor analysis of the internal correlations between these specific domains (Wylie, 1989). However, many of subsequent studies have either identified additional factors or have failed to replicate all six original factors (Piers, 1984). Four sets of findings suggested that the PH may be more unidimensional than multidimensional and that subscale convergent validities were strong but their discriminant validities were questionable or seriously deficient. The PH has been used in a number of studies on gender and age differences in self-perception among school-aged children. It is interesting to note that a total of 11 sets of studies, involving 2,700 subjects, failed to show gender difference in PH total scores. Piers (1984) reported that the data from her standardization group (1,183 students from grades 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12) yielded no age effects. Subjects from other researchers’ studies utilizing the PH often covered a narrow age range and thus, provided little interpretable data to explore any potential age difference in self perception with regard to children’s developmental process (Wylie, 1989). The Self-Perception Profile for Children. The Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC) (Harter, 1985) is an instrument for elementary-school and preadolescent children. It includes 36 items covering a Global Self-Worth scale and five “domain specific” scales: Scholastic Competence, Social Acceptance, Athletic Competence, Physical Appearance, and Behavioral Conduct. The Behavioral Conduct scale refers to the degree to which children see themselves as doing what they are supposed to do. SPPC is the only United States self-concept scale to use factor analysis to verify item selection for distinct domains and to include both domain-specific and general self-esteem scales (Wylie, 1989). One of the unique features of SPPC, as illustrated in figure 1, is that each item presents both a negative and a positive wording of the characteristic it represents. Moreover, across the SPPC items, the favorable self- descriptions are sometimes at the left end of the scale, sometimes at the right end (Wylie, 1989).

Really Sort of Some kids Other kids don’t Sort of Really true true have a lot of BUT have very many true true

friends friends

Figure 1. Example item from the Self-Perception Profile for Children

6

The Impact of Self-Perception The study of self has recently gained renewed interest as practitioners become increasingly aware that a positive self-perception is central to the adaptive functioning and overall mental health of an individual (Bandura, 1977; Bednar & Peterson, 1995). Kurtz-Costes and Schneider (1994) found in their study a positive correlation between self-perception and academic achievement, as measured by grades or standardized test scores. They used attribution questionnaires including eight vignettes of school experience. A study (Harter, 1981) using the Self-Perception Profile for Children also revealed that children with higher perceptive cognitive competence showed greater intrinsic motivation in their classroom learning. A number of studies were devoted to the ways in which students perceive themselves performing competently in academics, athletics, social activities with peers, as well as the critical implications on students’ mental health. Harter & Marold (1991) stated that individuals may become depressed after their self-perception is undermined by the perception of peer rejection. Moreover, anger accompanies depression and is directed toward the self or others (especially parents) who are unsupportive. In a study by Hay, Ashman, and Van Kraayenoord (1998), for example, teachers conducted individual interviews with their students and rated each student on the dimensions of popularity with peers, cooperation within the classroom, persistence with schoolwork, leadership within the class, and anxiety. Results of this study indicated that students who were identified as having high self-perceptions also were identified by teachers as being more popular among fellow classmates, more in control of their classroom behavior, expected to attend future schooling, and from families that were more supportive than was true for their classmates whose self-perception scores were lower.

Age Difference of Self-Perception A number of studies revealed that self-perception does not remain static during the process of human development. Some researchers (e.g. Bachman & O’Malley, 1977; Simmons, Rosenberg, & Rosenberg, 1973) suggested that certain self-conceptions may reasonably be expected to remain stable in elementary school, decline during early adolescence, and rise again in later adolescence and early adulthood. In particular, the fluctuation of self-perception during the transition period from childhood to adolescence was confirmed in studies by Silverman (1993), Lin (1976), and Chan (2001).

7

A study of over 3000 Chinese middle school students showed that between the ages of 12 and 15, Chinese youngsters begin to question their value system and to develop problems in adjustment to home, school, and the community (Lin, 1976). In addition to parental and male- female relationship and physical problems, Lin found that substantially more than half of the students worried about their future, their examinations, and their promotion to high school. In his study involving 240 Slovenian school-age children, Cugmas (2002) also reported similar increased concern by older age groups on the domains of self-perception referred to as anxiety and social acceptance measured by the Scale of Self-Perception for School Children. In addition to the general age difference between different age groups, another area of research interest is the inconsistency of change in self-perception at global and domain-specific levels across different age groups. Using the Chinese version of the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents, Chan’s (2001) study of a sample of 205 Hong Kong teenagers revealed an evident decline in self-perception scores in older adolescents. The exception to the general decline was the reversal in the domain of athletic competence, in which older adolescents reported greater competence in this domain than younger adolescents. It is also of interest that the global self- perception of younger adolescents was predictable from their self-evaluation of physical appearance and good behaviors. In contrast, the significant predictors of older adolescents’ global self-perception consisted not only of physical appearance and good behaviors, but also of scholastic competence and social and interpersonal competence (Chan, 2001).

Gender Difference of Self-Perception The inconsistency of change in self-perception among children from different age groups also may coexist with the development of gender differences. Numerous studies and observations revealed that differences exist between males and females and that such differences have great impact on how they perceive and evaluate themselves. Gender difference in self- perception, however, has been reviewed extensively and the results are not always consistent. Cloer and Dalton (2001) reported in their study of 106 students from 4th and 6th grades that a decline in self-perception was characteristic of middle school boys but not so for girls. Specifically, fourth grade boys scored significantly higher in their self-perception than sixth grade boys. An opposite result was reported by Silverman (1993) that self-perception declines in both American boys and girls as they move from childhood to adolescence, but such a decline is

8

more significant in girls. Wilson (1998), on the other hand, did not find any gender differences between third and fourth-grade students using the Multidimensional Self Concept Scale (MSCS). Fivush et al. (2000) used autobiographical narratives written by eight-year-old middle-class children and found that “females are more interpersonally oriented and males are more individually oriented” in reference to their self-perceptions (p. 423).

Cultural Difference in Global and Domain-Specific Self-Perception In addition to the developmental difference in self-perception, culture also plays an important role in people’s self-perception. People from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds demonstrate self-perception in distinct patterns and magnitudes. The cross cultural studies of self perception between Chinese and American students revealed two contradicting trends. Early studies found that Chinese children generally have a lower self-perception score as compared to their American counterparts (e.g. Stigler et al, 1985; Turner & Mo, 1984). Turner and his colleagues (1984) reported in their study that Chinese students show poorer self-perception on social relationships, vocational and educational goals, and mastery of the external world. Recent studies (e.g. Chan, 2002), however, revealed that the mean scores for a sample of Chinese students were comparable to the range of mean scores reported by Harter in 1985 for US students of grade 3 to grade 6, with slightly lower mean score for scholastic competence being characteristic of Chinese students. Yet another study (Wang & Ren, 2004), utilizing a cultural- probe self-perception scale, revealed that Chinese children scored significantly higher on all subscales than American children. Besides, Chinese girls consistently perceived themselves in a more positive manner than boys, while American girls consistently perceived themselves less positively than American boys. While disentangling these inconsistent findings, researchers need to take into consideration the cultural differences between the samples and the cultural-bound nature of the scales. The scales of self-perception documented in studies of American children may be culturally-specific because the United States is a society characterized by a highly individualistic value system that is used to define the self. This focus on the individualism may have fostered a heightened awareness of specific personal competencies. In contrast, Chinese culture is associated with a collectivist orientation that emphasizes the importance of the needs and interests of social groups (Stigler et al, 1985). An example of such culture trend is the uniformity

9

of instruction and group orientation in Chinese elementary school classrooms (Stevenson, Stigler, Lucker, & Lee, 1985). The group orientation of Chinese people can be demonstrated in a study by Stigler and his colleagues (1985), in which they found that Chinese students scored significantly higher than their American counterparts in items related to social subscales. Stigler explained that with group orientation and social participation as the norm, even an unpopular child in China may perceive himself as having many friends. It is thus reasonable for a Chinese child, on the average, to report having more friends and participating in more group activities. A cultural factor to consider in the study of self-perception is the reported tendency of Chinese culture to place emphasis on the values of modesty and self-effacement (Stigler et al, 1985). These values, which often place less emphasis on individual attainment, may lead Chinese students to under-rate their own competence on scales reflecting individualistic values. Instead of measuring the same self construct found in Western adolescents, the lower score of Chinese adolescents may simply be an affirmation of their own collectivistic value that underscore the importance of social harmony in social relationships. Stigler argued that items on the scale requiring children to compare themselves to others might strongly activate their self-effacing tendencies and thereby lessen the validity of their responses. He suggested that it is preferable to assess Chinese children’s perceived competence by asking questions about absolute levels of competence that do not require them to make direct comparisons with their peers. Yet another cultural difference in the study of self-perception lies in the selection of domains to be measured by the scales. Stigler and his colleagues (1985) suggested in their cross- cultural study of Chinese and American students’ self-perceptions that Chinese children may distinguish other domains of self-evaluation that are not assessed by the scale employed in the study (e.g. moral conduct or artistic skill). It is also possible that the given scale excludes some domains that are important for Chinese students, but not American students, e.g. behavior conduct, moral and ethic values, and group orientation (Meredith, Wang & Zheng, 1993).

Present Study Despite the continuing controversy and interest surrounding the assessment and interpretation of self-perception, cross-cultural studies on the self-perception among Chinese and American students have been largely confined to the studies with college students using global measures (e.g. Paschal & Kuo, 1973, Yang & Bond, 1980). Cross-cultural studies of self-

10

perception using samples of children and adolescents from China and the U.S. are quite limited (Stigler et al., 1985; Turner & Mo, 1984). The present study involved participants from grades 4, 6, 8, and10. Studies reveal that for younger children, the integrated systematic understanding of self as an abstract as well as concrete concept has not formed yet (e.g. Piaget, 1969; Erikson, 1997). Piaget (1969) and other researchers (Erikson, 1968 & 1997) indicated that children develop a pre-operational cognitive stage at an age of 10 approximately. Grades 4 and above, therefore, were selected to participate in this study utilizing an abstract survey format with language addressing both concrete and abstract traits of individual’s self perception. The transition period from childhood to early and subsequently to middle adolescence is of great interest to researchers because it is critical in children’s self-perception development. This period of development is concurrent with grades 6th-10th when students often make both the transition from elementary to middle school and from middle school to high school. A review of the literature revealed that scales employed in most previous studies were designed for American populations and few studies included scales that incorporate domains unique in both American and Chinese cultures (Meredith, Wang, & Zheng, 1993). In contrast, a contribution of this study is the use of a scale that took an effort in including values favored both by Chinese and American people. The aims of the present study were to (1) explore potential cultural differences in global as well as across specific domains of self-perception, (2) investigate the potential gender and age differences in self-perception among secondary school students, and (3) provide educational advice based on these research results for student populations from multicultural backgrounds. The first hypothesis was that a tendency existed for older students’ self-perception to decline in both American and Chinese students. The second hypothesis was that the gender difference in older students’ self-perception displayed different patterns among Chinese and American students. American male students tended to perceive themselves more positively than American females, whereas Chinese female students tended to perceive themselves more positively. Another focus of the study was the cultural difference in self-perception at subscale level. Chinese students were expected to demonstrate higher self-perception in domains such as social relationships with peers and adults, group orientations, moral and ethnic values.

11

Chapter III METHODOLOGY

Participants A sample of 77 American students (27 male and 50 female) and 510 Chinese students (278 male and 232 female) from 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th grades participated in the study. The American students, largely Caucasians, were from a private school in the mid-west Ohio. The Chinese participants were from three public elementary and secondary schools in Liaoning province in northeast China. The students were from families with average social-economic status and were primarily from the homogeneous Han ethnic group, the largest component of the Chinese population (see Table 1).

Table 1 Numbers of participants from U.S. and China U.S. China Grade Male Female Overall Male Female Overall 4 7 22 29 75 39 114 6 7 11 18 69 60 129 8 7 12 19 68 65 133 10 6 5 11 66 68 134 Total 27 50 77 278 232 510

Materials CPA Self-Perception Scale: How much is this like you? (see Appendix I & II). CPA Self- Perception Scale was employed in this study. Cultural Probe Approach (CPA) (Wang, 2005) combines confirmatory and exploratory approaches to collect related quantitative reference information in order to serve as a base for interpretation of results. A CPA self-perception instrument gathers not only information of students’ self-evaluation in various domains but also how important these domains are to them. This instrument incorporates sub-domains of self- perception that are valued by both American and Chinese populations (Wang, 2005). The instrument was developed in English and Chinese at the same time. Every effort was made to ensure that the original meaning intended for each item was carefully conveyed in both language versions. Two bilingual researchers re-translated the Chinese version into English and the

12

English version into Chinese. The translated versions were compared with original versions and discrepancies were thoroughly discussed and resolved by joint agreement (Wang, 2005). It is noticed that in the previous studies, the self-perception scales always involve significant subjectivity because the language used in these scales always includes some subjective words such as “I believe” or “I think I am the best in the class.” These subjective words prompt children, in turn, to rate themselves based on a particular frame of reference rather than on objective facts. The scale employed by the present study includes statements, such as “I am smart” or “I get angry easily”, that do not require students to compare with any frame of reference. Children are more likely to rate themselves on this scale based on their actual performance than to be influenced by any frame of reference (Wang & Ren, 2004). The instrument includes 60 items, addressing eleven distinctive domains, group orientation, independence, intelligence, self-control, moral and ethnic values, physical appearance, schoolwork, self-confidence, self-esteem, social relationship with peers, and social relationships with adults. The items are rated on a 5 point scale, with “1” representing “disagree” and “5” representing “agree.” Students also rated their view of the importance of these items on a 7 point scale, with “1” representing “least important” and “7” representing “most important”. A preliminary study involving over five hundred school-aged children revealed that this scale has satisfactory psychometric properties. The overall internal consistency reliability of the scale is 0.949 and the internal reliabilities of most of the subscales were within the range of 0.50 to 0.86. The correlations among these subscales fall within the range of 0.4 to 0.6, indicating that most subscales are distinctive from each other in terms of construct validity (Wang, 2005).

Procedures Participants were recruited from a private school in Ohio in the United States and Liaoning Province in China. Informed consents were obtained from the parents or guardians of the participants as well as verbal assent from the participants themselves (see Appendix III). The participants took approximately 30-45 minutes to complete the survey during their study hall periods. For students who had difficulty understanding the directions, verbal explanations were provided where necessary. Participants directly marked their choices next to the statements on the questionnaire to avoid mismatches between answers and items. The completed surveys were collected in class and the data were entered and analyzed using SPSS 13.0.

13

Chapter IV RESULTS

A two-country by two-gender by four-grade mix analysis of variance was conducted to examine the main effect and the interactions of these variables. Table 2 reports the means and standard deviations of the American students, whereas Table 3 reports the means and standard deviations of the Chinese students. Table 4 reports the main effect and the interactions of variables such as grade, gender, and country. There is no significant interaction in three-way variance of grade, gender, and country, F(1, 36) = .8, p > .05. Similarly, there was no significant interaction in two-way variance of grade and country, F (1, 36) = 1.2, p > .05, or grade and gender, F (1, 36) = .5, p > .05. However, significant interaction of two-way variance existed between country and gender, F (1, 12) = 2.3, p < .05.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) of American students’ self-perception scores. 4 6 8 10 Overall Group Orientation Male 2.3 (0.31) 2.1 (0.36) 2.6 (0.47) 2.4 (0.31) 3.8 (0.90) Female 2.3 (0.32) 2.3 (0.47) 2.2 (0.34) 2.0 (0.55) 3.8 (0.99) Overall 2.3 (0.31) 2.2 (0.43) 2.3 (0.44) 2.2 (0.48) 3.8 (0.94) Independence Male 3.5 (0.53) 3.4 (0.34) 3.3 (0.85) 3.2 (0.31) 3.3 (0.54) Female 3.4 (0.43) 3.2 (0.37) 3.0 (0.56) 3.1 (0.33) 3.2 (0.46) Overall 3.4 (0.45) 3.3 (0.36) 3.1 (0.67) 3.1 (0.30) 3.3 (0.49) Intelligence Male 3.1 (0.46) 3.0 (0.35) 2.9 (0.34) 3.3 (0.39) 3.0 (0.39) Female 2.8 (0.30) 2.9 (0.30) 3.0 (0.41) 3.0 (0.36) 2.9 (0.34) Overall 2.9 (0.35) 3.0 (0.31) 3.0 (0.38) 3.2 (0.38) 3.0 (0.36) Moral and Ethnic Values Male 2.6 (0.41) 3.2 (0.34) 2.7 (0.49) 2.9 (0.33) 2.9 (0.45) Female 2.8 (0.47) 3.0 (0.44) 2.9 (0.24) 2.9 (0.34) 2.9 (0.40) Overall 2.8 (0.46) 3.1 (0.41) 2.8 (0.36) 2.9 (0.32) 2.9 (0.42) Appearance Male 2.6 (0.64) 2.9 (0.51) 3.3 (0.25) 3.2 (0.65) 3.0 (0.57) Female 2.9 (0.46) 3.0 (0.33) 3.3 (0.30) 3.0 (0.24) 3.0 (0.41) Overall 2.9 (0.52) 2.9 (0.40) 3.3 (0.28) 3.1 (0.50) 3.0 (0.47)

14

Table 2 (Continued) 4 6 8 10 Overall Schoolwork Male 2.7 (0.34) 2.9 (0.51) 2.6 (0.33) 2.9 (0.37) 2.8 (0.40) Female 2.5 (0.40) 2.6 (0.30) 2.7 (0.42) 2.8 (0.40) 2.6 (0.39) Overall 2.5 (0.39) 2.7 (0.41) 2.6 (0.38) 2.9 (0.37) 2.6 (0.40) Self-Confidence Male 3.0 (0.76) 2.9 (0.55) 3.0 (0.71) 2.8 (0.34) 2.9 (0.59) Female 2.7 (0.47) 2.7 (0.46) 2.8 (0.41) 2.6 (0.26) 2.7 (0.43) Overall 2.8 (0.56) 2.8 (0.49) 2.9 (0.53) 2.7 (0.33) 2.8 (0.50) Self-Control Male 2.2 (0.34) 2.7 (0.51) 2.7 (0.39) 2.6 (0.22) 2.6 (0.42) Female 2.5 (0.42) 2.5 (0.33) 2.9 (0.37) 2.7 (0.31) 2.6 (0.42) Overall 2.4 (0.41) 2.6 (0.42) 2.9 (0.39) 2.6 (0.25) 2.6 (0.42) Social Relationship with Adults Male 3.2 (0.41) 3.3 (0.28) 3.0 (0.55) 3.0 (0.29) 3.1 (0.39) Female 3.3 (0.52) 3.2 (0.31) 3.1 (0.33) 3.4 (0.38) 3.2 (0.42) Overall 3.3 (0.49) 3.3 (0.29) 3.1 (0.41) 3.2 (0.36) 3.2 (0.41) Social Relationship with Peers Male 2.4 (0.35) 2.8 (0.24) 2.7 (0.56) 2.6 (0.15) 2.6 (0.38) Female 2.5 (0.48) 2.4 (0.50) 2.7 (0.37) 2.5 (0.11) 2.5 (0.43) Overall 2.5 (0.45) 2.6 (0.45) 2.7 (0.44) 2.5 (0.13) 2.6 (0.42) Self-Esteem Male 4.1 (1.07) 3.6 (1.13) 3.1 (1.57) 3.7 (1.51) 3.6 (1.31) Female 2.7 (1.49) 2.5 (1.13) 2.8 (1.64) 2.6 (0.89) 2.7 (1.38) Overall 3.1 (1.51) 2.9 (1.23) 2.9 (1.58) 3.2 (1.33) 3.0 (1.42) Overall Male 2.9 (0.10) 3.0 (0.19) 2.9 (0.13) 3.0 (0.15) 2.9 (0.15) Female 2.8 (0.17) 2.7 (0.18) 2.9 (0.19) 2.8 (0.07) 2.8 (0.17) Overall 2.8 (0.16) 2.8 (0.21) 2.9 (0.17) 2.9 (0.14) 2.8 (0.18)

15

Table 3 Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) of Chinese students’ self-perception scores. 4 6 8 10 Overall Group Orientation Male 3.9 (0.84) 3.9 (0.89) 4.0 (0.78) 4.1 (0.68) 3.9 (0.80) Female 4.0 (0.68) 4.3 (0.83) 4.2 (0.56) 4.2 (0.71) 4.2 (0.70) Overall 3.9 (0.79) 4.0 (0.88) 4.1 (0.68) 4.1 (0.70) 4.0 (0.77) Independence Male 3.8 (0.80) 3.9 (0.76) 3.7 (0.67) 3.7 (0.74) 3.8 (0.75) Female 3.9 (0.73) 4.1 (0.75) 3.8 (0.70) 3.7 (0.71) 3.9 (0.74) Overall 3.9 (0.78) 4.0 (0.76) 3.8 (0.68) 3.7 (0.72) 3.8 (0.74) Intelligence Male 3.3 (0.66) 3.4 (0.57) 3.2 (0.54) 3.3 (0.55) 3.3 (0.59) Female 3.4 (0.59) 3.7 (0.46) 3.3 (0.56) 3.3 (0.62) 3.4 (0.58) Overall 3.3 (0.64) 3.5 (0.54) 3.3 (0.55) 3.3 (0.59) 3.4 (0.58) Moral and Ethnic Values Male 4.2 (0.61) 4.2 (0.71) 4.1 (0.67) 4.2 (0.57) 4.2 (0.64) Female 4.3 (0.59) 4.6 (0.53) 4.3 (0.57) 4.4 (0.53) 4.4 (0.56) Overall 4.2 (0.61) 4.4 (0.66) 4.2 (0.62) 4.3 (0.55) 4.3 (0.61) Appearance Male 4.0 (0.72) 4.1 (0.87) 4.3 (0.65) 4.0 (0.78) 4.1 (0.76) Female 4.3 (0.71) 4.7 (0.47) 4.7 (0.39) 4.6 (0.44) 4.6 (0.51) Overall 4.1 (0.72) 4.4 (0.77) 4.5 (0.57) 4.3 (0.70) 4.3 (0.71) Schoolwork Male 3.7 (0.56) 3.7 (0.68) 3.7 (0.72) 3.5 (0.62) 3.6 (0.65) Female 3.9 (0.51) 3.9 (0.55) 3.8 (0.65) 3.8 (0.53) 3.9 (0.57) Overall 3.8 (0.55) 3.8 (0.63) 3.7 (0.69) 3.7 (0.59) 3.7 (0.62) Self-Confidence Male 3.3 (0.70) 3.7 (0.70) 3.5 (0.72) 3.6 (0.60) 3.5 (0.70) Female 3.5 (0.54) 3.9 (0.58) 3.5 (0.65) 3.8 (0.61) 3.7 (0.62) Overall 3.4 (0.66) 3.8 (0.65) 3.5 (0.68) 3.7 (0.61) 3.6 (0.66) Self-Control Male 3.5 (0.77) 3.7 (0.91) 3.7 (0.65) 3.4 (0.78) 3.6 (0.78) Female 3.6 (0.80) 4.2 (0.72) 3.6 (0.68) 3.5 (0.75) 3.7 (0.78) Overall 3.6 (0.77) 3.9 (0.87) 3.6 (0.66) 3.5 (0.76) 3.6 (0.78) Social Relationship with Adults Male 3.8 (0.82) 3.9 (0.91) 3.9 (0.69) 3.9 (0.68) 3.9 (0.78) Female 4.1 (0.70) 4.3 (0.63) 4.1 (0.72) 4.2 (0.56) 4.2 (0.65) Overall 3.9 (0.78) 4.1 (0.83) 4.0 (0.71) 4.1 (0.63) 4.0 (0.74)

16

Table 3 (Continued) 4 6 8 10 Overall Social Relationship with Peers Male 4.1 (0.69) 4.2 (0.77) 4.1 (0.63) 4.0 (0.62) 4.1 (0.68) Female 4.1 (0.77) 4.6 (0.51) 4.2 (0.64) 4.0 (0.55) 4.2 (0.65) Overall 4.1 (0.72) 4.4 (0.70) 4.1 (0.64) 4.0 (0.59) 4.2 (0.67) Self-Esteem Male 3.6 (1.63) 3.7 (1.46) 3.0 (1.49) 3.1 (1.46) 3.4 (1.53) Female 3.9 (1.59) 4.0 (1.48) 3.6 (1.46) 3.5 (1.30) 3.7 (1.45) Overall 3.7 (1.61) 3.8 (1.47) 3.3 (1.50) 3.3 (1.39) 3.5 (1.50) Overall Male 3.7 (0.48) 3.8 (0.54) 3.7 (0.44) 3.7 (0.43) 3.7 (0.48) Female 3.9 (0.41) 4.2 (0.45) 3.9 (0.44) 3.9 (0.40) 4.0 (0.44) Overall 3.8 (0.47) 4.0 (0.53) 3.8 (0.45) 3.8 (0.43) 3.8 (0.47)

Table 4 The main effect and interactions of the mix multi-analysis of variance F** df Sig. Country 51.4* 12, 560 0.001 Gender 2.1* 12, 560 0.016 Grade 1.8* 36, 1686 0.002 Country * Grade 1.2 36, 1686 0.199 Country * Gender 2.3* 12, 560 0.009 Grade * Gender 0.5 36, 1686 0.987 Country * Grade * Gender 0.8 36, 1686 0.742 * p < .05

Grade Difference in Overall Self-Perception One-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the grade difference of overall self- perception for students from both U. S. and China. Table 5 includes the means and standard deviations of students’ scored overall self-perceptions by grade. Post-Hoc analysis reveals that there were significant differences between grades, F (3, 592) = 4.3, p < .05 (see Figure 2).

17

Table 5 Means, standard deviations, and grade difference of students’ overall self-perception Grade 4 6 8 10 Total 6 -.23(*) - 8 -.11 .12 - 10 -.14 .09 -.03 - Mean 3.58 3.81 3.68 3.71 3.70 SD 0.58 0.65 0.52 0.47 0.56 * p < .05

3.85 3.80 3.75 3.70 3.65 3.60 3.55 3.50 3.45 46810

Figure 2. Grade difference of students’ overall self-perception

A closer examination of the grade difference in two countries revealed that significant change in self-perception existed in students from both countries, F (3, 80) = 3.14, p < .05 for U.S. students; F (3, 508) = 5.77, p < .05 for Chinese students. However, the two samples displayed different developmental trends across grades (see Figure 3 and Table 6).

U.S. China

2.94 4.10

4.00 2.88 3.90 2.82 3.80

2.76 3.70

2.70 3.60 46810 46810

Figure 3. Grade difference in overall self-perception among U.S. and Chinese students

18

Table 6 Grade difference in overall self-perception among American and Chinese students U.S. China 4 6 8 4 6 8 6 -.05 - -.22* - 8 -.11* -.07 - -.05 .17* - 10 -.11 -.06 0.01 -.03 .19 .02 * p < .05

Grade Difference in Domain-Specific Self-Perception The grade differences in domain-specific self-perceptions generally display developmental patterns similar to that of overall self-perception (see Table 7). Nevertheless, two domains, schoolwork, F (3, 592) = .94, p > .05, and social relationship with adults, F (3, 591) = 2.00, p > .05, do not display any significant changes across grades. In contrast, the domain of group orientation demonstrates a significant and continuous increase as grade progresses, F (3, 592) = 4.59, p< .05 (see Figure 4).

Table 7 Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) of grade difference in domain-specific self-perception 46810Overall Group orientation 3.6 (0.96) 3.8 (1.08) 3.9 (0.87) 4.0 (0.85) 3.8 (0.95) Independence 3.7 (0.75) 3.9 (0.78) 3.7 (0.71) 3.7 (0.71) 3.7 (0.75) Intelligence 3.2 (0.63) 3.4 (0.57) 3.2 (0.54) 3.3 (0.57) 3.3 (0.58) Moral and ethnic values 3.9 (0.82) 4.2 (0.78) 4.0 (0.75) 4.2 (0.65) 4.1 (0.76) Appearance 3.8 (0.84) 4.2 (0.90) 4.3 (0.66) 4.2 (0.76) 4.2 (0.82) Schoolwork 3.5 (0.71) 3.6 (0.75) 3.6 (0.75) 3.6 (0.62) 3.6 (0.71) Self-confidence 3.3 (0.71) 3.6 (0.73) 3.5 (0.70) 3.6 (0.65) 3.5 (0.71) Self-control 3.3 (0.87) 3.7 (0.96) 3.5 (0.68) 3.4 (0.77) 3.5 (0.84) Social relationship with adults 3.8 (0.80) 3.9 (0.86) 3.9 (0.74) 4.0 (0.66) 3.9 (0.77) Social relationship with peers 3.8 (0.93) 4.1 (0.92) 4.0 (0.79) 3.9 (0.68) 3.9 (0.84) Self-esteem 3.6 (1.61) 3.7 (1.47) 3.3 (1.51) 3.3 (1.38) 3.5 (1.50)

19

Group Orientation

Schoolwork Social Relationship with Adults

Figure 4. Grade difference of self-perception in domains of group orientation, schoolwork, and social relationships with adults

Gender Difference Significant difference is displayed between male and female students in both American and Chinese samples. The change patterns, however, are quite opposite. The American male students displayed a significantly higher self-perception than female students did, t(58) = 2.50, p < .05, whereas Chinese female students demonstrated a significantly higher self-perception than male students, t(504) = -5.58, p < .05 (see Table 8 and Figure 5).

Table 8 Means, standard deviations, and gender difference of overall self-perception among American and Chinese students

Male Female t df p Mean SD Mean SD U.S. 2.9 (0.15) 2.8 (0.14) 2.50 58 0.02 China 3.8 (0.47) 4.0 (0.43) -5.58 504 0.01

20

4.20 4.5

3.60

4.0 3.00

2.40 3.5

1.80 3.0

1.20 2.5

0.60

2.0 0.00 46810 U.S. China U.S. Male U.S. Female

Ma l e Female CHN Male CHN Female

Figure 5. Gender difference in overall Figure 6. Gender difference by grades in overall self-perception among American and self-perception among American and Chinese Chinese students students Table 9

Gender difference by grades in overall self-perception among American and Chinese students

4 6 8 10 Overall U.S. Male 2.9 (0.10) 3.0 (0.19) 2.9 (0.13) 3.0 (0.15) 2.9 (0.15) Female 2.8 (0.17) 2.7 (0.18) 2.9 (0.19) 2.8 (0.07) 2.8 (0.17) China Male 3.7 (0.48) 3.8 (0.54) 3.7 (0.44) 3.7 (0.43) 3.7 (0.48) Female 3.9 (0.41) 4.2 (0.45) 3.9 (0.44) 3.9 (0.40) 4.0 (0.44)

Cultural Difference American students scored lower in overall self-perception as well as domain-specific self-perceptions across all eleven subscales than Chinese students (see Table 9, Figure 6, and Figure 7). The most significant differences remain in the overall scale, t (594) =39.8, p<.05, as well as for the domains such as group orientation, t (594) = 30.5, p < .05, moral and ethnic values, t (594) = 26.0, p < .05, and social relationship with peers, t (593) = 29.6, p < .05, with Chinese students scoring significantly higher.

21

Table 10 Means, standard deviations, and cultural difference in domain-specific self-perception among American and Chinese students U.S. China t df Sig. Mean SD Mean SD Group Orientation 2.3 (0.43) 4.0 (0.77) 30.5 594 0.001 Independence 3.2 (0.51)3.8 (0.74)9.2 593 0.001 Intelligence 2.9 (0.37)3.4 (0.59)8.9 593 0.001 Moral and Ethnic Values 2.9 (0.41) 4.3 (0.62) 26.0 594 0.001 Appearance 3.0 (0.48)4.3 (0.71)21.6 594 0.001 Schoolwork 2.6 (0.41)3.7 (0.62)21.0 594 0.001 Self-Confidence 2.8 (0.52)3.6 (0.67)12.9 593 0.001 Self-Control 2.5 (0.45)3.6 (0.78)18.4 594 0.001 Social Relationship with Adults 3.2 (0.47) 4.0 (0.75) 13.6 593 0.001 Social Relationship with Peers 2.6 (0.40) 4.2 (0.67) 29.6 593 0.001 Self-Esteem 3.0 (1.42)3.5 (1.50)3.0 585 0.004 Overall 2.8 (0.15) 3.9 (0.47)39.8 594 0.001

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Overall Self- Group Social Social Orientation Intelligence Confidence Moral and Self-Control Relationship Relationship Self-Esteem Schoolwork Appearance Ethnic Values Independence

U.S. China

Figure 7. Cultural difference in domain-specific self-perception among American and Chinese students

22

U.S. China

Group Orientation

Independence

Intelligence

Moral and Ethnic Values

Appearance

Schoolwork

Figure 8. Cultural and grade differences in domain-specific self-perception.

23

U.S. China

Self- Confidence

Self-Control

Social Relationship with Adults

Social Relationship with Peers

Self-Esteem

Overall

Figure 8. (Continued)

24

Chapter V

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study intended to examine the possible grade, gender, and cultural differences in American and Chinese school-aged children’s self-perceptions at overall and domain-specific levels.

Cultural Differences Contrary to past findings of lower self-perception scores of Chinese students as compared with U.S. students (Stigler et al., 1985; Turner & Mo, 1984), the mean scores of these sample populations show that Chinese students scored consistently higher than their American counterparts overall as well as all in each of the eleven domains. The three subscales with the most significant score differences between the two samples are Group Orientation, Social Relationships with Peers, and Moral and Ethnic Values. These three subscales are all are highly emphasized in Chinese culture (Wang, 2005). Scores that show the least differences remain in subscales such as Independence and Intelligence, which are two domains that are highly valued in American culture but comparatively less valued in Chinese culture. The findings support the original intention of the scale development; namely to incorporate values and domains emphasized by both the American and the Chinese cultures in order to make the measurement culturally equitable to both the populations. The significant differences of self-perception at subscale level among the samples from the two countries are revealing. Mental health practitioners and educators should advocate the use of culturally competent measurements for their students’ mental health assessment. In cases when less-than- satisfactory measurements are employed, the results should be interpreted with great caution and the culture bias of the measurements should be addressed.

Grade Difference The results of the present study support the previous findings (Bachman & O’Malley, 1977; Simmons, Rosenberg, & Rosenberg, 1973) that self-perception does not remain static during the process of human development. An increase in overall self-perception scores is evident from grade 4 to 6 in both samples. The most significant gains in scores exist in domains

25

such as Self-Confidence, Self-Control, and Appearance, which coincide with an increase in locus of control and autonomy among children of ages from approximately 10 to 12 (grades 4 to 6). In contrast to the growth in self-perception during grades 4 to 6, there is a consistent and evident decline in self-perception scores for older students in both the American and Chinese samples. The age range from approximately 12 to 16 (grades 6 to 10) overlaps with the stage of early adolescence during which children face the biological transition to puberty, the educational transition from elementary to secondary schools, and the psychological shifts accompanying the emergence of sexuality (Erikson, 1968). Coping with the stresses of pubertal change, school transitions, and the complexity of dating at the same time puts young adolescents at risk for developmental problems typical for this age range, such as low self-esteem. Although both the samples share an evident declining trend in the grade difference pattern, the specific period of change lies in the grade during which the self-perception upward momentum is replaced with a downward trend. The growth of overall self-perception among American students remains until the 8th grade, whereas that of the Chinese students continues until the 6th grade, ending much earlier than their U.S. counterparts. In the social context of a competitive exam-dominated Chinese school system, it is not surprising that Chinese students experience increasing stress and anxiety as they move to secondary schools, during which one of their major tasks is getting prepared for the university-entrance examination. Most Chinese students transition to secondary schools at grade 7. At grade 6, they usually experience considerable pressure to achieve, in order that they might enter competitive secondary schools. The increasing schoolwork pressure may partly contribute to the earlier decline in overall self- perception among Chinese students. The transition grade from elementary to secondary may vary among American students depending on their local school systems. The American participants of this study attended a private school that includes both elementary and secondary grades; thus, minimizing the transition effect. American students may experience similar schoolwork pressure, though it may arrive relatively later, usually in their senior high school years. Self-perceptions at the domain-specific levels also reveal some intriguing age patterns. Distinctive experiences regarding schoolwork among students from these two countries are substantiated by the self-perception scores in the area of schoolwork. While American students demonstrated a significant increase in their self-perception regarding their schoolwork performance from grade 6 to grade 10, Chinese students displayed a significant decrease during

26

the same period (see Figure 7). Chinese students tend to use the best student’s achievement as their frame of reference. Therefore, even those among the top 10% will still think that they are not good enough unless they become the top achiever. In contrast, American students tend to compare themselves with the average students (Wang, 2005). This “good enough” philosophy is applied extensively by students in grades 4 to 10. The top 10% of American students may hold a very high self-perception towards their schoolwork since they are significantly above the average. Interestingly enough, the correlation between self-perceptions on Schoolwork and Self- confidence demonstrated in previous studies (e.g. Marsh & Parker, 1983) was not detected in these samples. In spite of significant grade difference in area of Schoolwork, neither American nor Chinese students displayed any significant changes in their Self-confidence across grades. The patterns in grade difference resemble each other in domains of Self-Control, Social Relationship with Peers, and in overall score. While American students demonstrated a significant increase starting from grade 4 and a significant decrease at grade 8 in both of the two subscales, the turning point for Chinese students arrived at grade 6, much earlier than their American counterparts. This implies that self-control and social relationships with peers are two strong indicators of student’s overall self-perception. This conjecture is substantiated by informal teacher reports which often suggested that students who are popular among their peers and are responsible in their behaviors always carry a more positive sense of self. In contrast to the different grade-determined turning points in areas of Self-Control, Social Relationship with Peers, and the overall scale, the area of Appearance shares similar grade difference patterns between the two samples. Both American and Chinese students showed a growth of self-perception with regard to their physical appearance from grades 4 to 8, and a decrease from grades 8 to 10. In contrast to the variation in overall self-perception across grades, American students demonstrated a steady increase in self-perception with regard to Intelligence while Chinese students gained consistent growth in self-perception regarding Group-Orientation. This coincides with the different emphasis in values between the two countries’ cultures (Stigler et al, 1985). While Chinese culture prioritizes the values of social harmony and collectivism, American culture places much emphasis on individualism and self-attainment.

27

The consistency of the results of this study with those of previous studies supports the robustness of the concept that self-perception varies by age. It reiterates that the critical transitional period during later childhood and early adolescence plays an important role in the formation of a positive self-perception which may contribute to achievements in the later stages of life.

Gender Difference The gender difference in overall self-perception in American students, as demonstrated in the results of the present study, corresponds to the gender stereotype in American culture (Silverman, 1993), where male students hold more positive perception towards themselves than female students do. Two subscales that contribute the most to the overall gender difference in American sample are Schoolwork and Self-Confidence. This can be substantiated by the informal reports that male students get more attention from educators who are over-represented by female teachers. Teachers tend to call on male students more often in class and their expectations of male students are usually higher than their expectations of female students. This, in turn, boosts male students’ assertiveness and self-esteem and contributes to their self- perception development. The gender difference in Chinese students, however, showed an opposite trend. Chinese female students, contrary to their American counterparts, scored higher than Chinese male students in overall as well as domain-specific self-perceptions. This is substantiated by the fact that Chinese female students in elementary and secondary schools usually show more achievement than their male counterparts in almost all areas, including academics, behaviors, and social relationships. The only exception may lie in the area of athletics. It is also worth noting that female students’ superior performance is always acknowledged by their teachers, family members, and other adults. This, in turn, reinforces the development of a positive self- perception.

Implications The present study examines possible cultural, grade, and gender differences in overall and domain-specific self-perceptions among American and Chinese students and provides implications for school-based mental health practitioners. The grade and gender differences at the overall and domain-specific levels evidence a critical transitional period between late

28

childhood and early adolescence. The achievement of many psychologically developmental milestones during this period is crucial in the formation of a positive self-perception and the attainment of many other valued outcomes at later stages of life. As a result, an awareness of the students’ developmental needs is crucial for the successful delivery of mental health services at school. The similar patterns of grade difference in areas of schoolwork and overall self- perception reveal that overly-challenging academic requirements may adversely affect students’ self-concept with regard to their schoolwork and, ultimately have a negative impact on their overall self-perception in the long run. The present study also stresses the importance of understanding cultural differences and selecting appropriate mental health measurements in order to successfully assess the mental health status of students who are from multi-cultural backgrounds. Educators, psychologists, and counselors need to be cultural-critical of the available assessment measurements when evaluating students’ strength and areas for improvement. Using the same measurements to assess students from different cultural backgrounds will likely increase assessment bias. Information collected from multiple resources such as observation in natural settings and interviews with family members will provide useful references for assessment and increase the effectiveness of the mental health services. In summary, the study of self-perception in areas of grade, gender, and cultural differences suggests that each student should be treated as a unique individual and their individualized needs should be met with careful consideration given to their developmental levels, genders, and cultural backgrounds.

Limitations Considering the small U. S. sample size in comparison to the over-five-hundred Chinese student sample size, any conclusion of students’ self-perception based on the combined data may lean heavily towards the Chinese sample and thus should be interpreted with caution. The statistical significance in cultural differences may not necessarily lead to practical significance. Further statistical analysis, such as weighted mean and standard deviation, is recommended. Collecting U.S. data from a single private school and the over-presentation of Caucasian students in the U.S. sample may limit the generalization of the study results. In addition, the

29

religious background of the private school is not included in the investigation of this study. Religion is a possible factor that impacts students’ belief system and perception of themselves. More heterogeneous samples should be selected in future studies to increase the likelihood of generalizing the finding to a broader student population. The present study is cross-sectional since data were collected at the same period from students across grades. The developmental difference in self-perception presented in the study may be overshadowed by the group differences demonstrated by students from different grades. Longitudinal research is recommended for studying developmental difference in students’ self- perception.

Future Research The study suggests a number of areas for further research. American students with Asian ethnic origins would be an interesting sample for future self-perception studies since they are usually influenced by two or more cultural or belief systems in which conflicts in values may exist in one domain or another. Further research may explore how these students accommodate themselves in the micro-culture at home and the macro-culture of society as a whole. Students from the 11th and 12th grades should also be included in any future study, as those years are also a crucial period for self-perception development. Students’ perception on how important these domains and traits are can be a focus of further study. This will provide researchers with a frame of reference when interpreting students’ self-perception scores. A last suggestion for future studies is to collect additional information on teachers’ or peers’ rating in domains such as schoolwork or social relationships. This will provide additional reference or evidence regarding whether students over- or under-estimate themselves in their schoolwork or social status. Research has shown reciprocal relationships between social skills and self-competence. Higher perception of self-capability may contribute to social competence and vice versa. Some domains in the CPA Self-Perception Scale may reflect such reciprocal relationships, such as schoolwork, intelligence, and social relationships with peers and adults. At the same time, contradicting domains may also exist in the scale, such as self-competence in schoolwork and group orientation. Chinese culture is collectivism-oriented and highly competitive at the same time. Students may compete to be the best in schoolwork-related activities but tend to be highly

30

group-oriented in social and athletic activities. The interaction among these reciprocal or contradicting domains and the joint impact on students’ overall self-perception needs further exploration. Chinese culture places more emphasis on effort while in American culture talent seems to take precedent. This may influence students’ locus of control externally or internally. The potential impact of such cultural differences on students’ self-perception is worthy of further research as well.

Summary The increasing diversity in American student population and the strong correlation between academic achievement, social interactions, and emotional well-being have brought people’s attention to cross-cultural studies involving school-aged children’s self-perception. The present research involving 587 students from both United States and China studied age, gender, and cultural differences in overall scale as well as in ten different domains of self-perception. The measurement employed in the study is a 60-item self-perception scale adopting a cultural probe approach (in both English and Chinese). The Chinese participants scored significantly higher overall as well as in ten different domains dealing with their self-perception. The three domains that displayed the most significant differences are group orientation, social relationships, and moral and ethnic values. The findings substantiate the emphasis on these values within Chinese culture. The results support the previous findings that self-perception development, instead of remaining static, demonstrates a positive or increasing trend in late childhood and a negative or declining trend in during the transition to early adolescence. While Chinese female participants scored more positively in their self-perception than their male counterparts, the American sample of females demonstrated an opposite pattern, with males scoring higher than females. The results evidence a critical transitional period between late childhood and early adolescence and should illustrate to educators and school mental-health practitioners the significance of positive self-perception formation in their students. The results also stress the importance of understanding cultural differences in children’s self-perception in order to improve the quality of mental health services provided in educational settings.

31

REFERENCES

Adler, A. (1927). The practice and theory of individual psychology. New York: Harcourt. Bachman, J. G., & O’Malley, P. M. (1977). Self-esteem in young men: A longitudinal analysis of the impact of educational and occupational attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 365-380. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review. 84. 191-215. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman. Bandura, A. (1999). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. In Baumeister, R. F. (Ed.). The self in social psychology (pp. 285-298). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Bednar, R. L. & Peterson, S. R. (1995). Self-esteem: Paradoxes and innovations in clinical theory and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.) Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes, Volume I. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Chan, D. W. (2001). Global and specific self-concepts of gifted adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 24. 344-364. Cloer, T. & Dalton, S. R. (2001). Gender and grade differences in reading achievement and in self-concept as readers. Journal of Reading Education. 26. 31-36. Constantine, M. G. & Gushue, G. V. (2003). School counselors' ethnic tolerance attitudes and racism attitudes as predictors of their multicultural case conceptualizations of an immigrant student. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81(2). 185-90. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman. Cugmas, Z. (2002). Preliminary results of the scale of self-perception for school children. Early Child Development and Care. 172. 35-53. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: W. W. Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1997). The life cycle completed. New York: W. W. Norton.

32

Fivush, R.; Brotman, M. A.; Buckner, J. P. & Goodman, S. H. (2000). Gender differences in parent-child emotion narratives. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 42(3-4). 233-53. Harter, S. (1981). A model of intrinsic mastery motivation in children: Individual differences and developmental change. In A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology. (14. 215-255). Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child Development, 53. 87-97. Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) and E. M. Hetherington (Vol Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socializaion, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 275-386). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver, CO: University of Denver. Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self. New York: Guilford. Harter, S. & Marold, D. B. (1991). A model of the determinants and mediational role of self- worth: implications for adolescent depression and suicidal ideation. In Strauss & Goethals, The Self: Interdisciplinary Approaches. New York: Springer-Verlag. Hay, I.; Ashman, A. F.; Van Kraayenoord, C. E. (1998). The influence of gender, academic achievement and non-school factors upon pre-adolescent self-concept. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 18(4). 461-70. Horney, K. (1945). Our inner conflicts. New York: Norton. Ingraham, C. L. (2000). Consultation through a multicultural lens: multicultural and cross- cultural consultation in schools. School Psychology Review, 29(3). 320-43. James, W. (1892). Psychology: the briefer course. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Kurtz-Costes, B.E. and Scneider, W. (1994). Self-concept, attributional beliefs, and school achievement: A longitudinal analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 199- 216. Lin, C. (1976). Adjustment problems of junior high school students and their guidance. Master’s Thesis Abstract, Graduate Institute of Education, National Taiwan Normal University. Marsh, H.W., Parker, J.W. (1983) Preadolescent self-concept: Its relation to self-concept as inferred by teachers and to academic ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 60-78.

33

Meredith, W. H; Wang, A. & Zheng, F. (1993) Determining constructs of self-perception for children in Chinese cultures. School Psychology International, 14(4). 371-380. National Association of School Psychologists. (2005) Culturally competent practice: Mission statement. Retrieved on October 28, 2005, from http://www.nasponline.org/culturalcompetence/mission.html Paschal, B. J. & Kuo, Y. Y. (1973). Anxiety and Self-concept among American and Chinese college students. College Student Journal. 7. 7-13. Peavy, R. V. & Li, H. Z. (2003). Social and cultural context of intercultural counseling. Canadian Journal of Counseling, 37(3). 186-96. Piaget, J. (1969). The child’s conception of the world. Totowa, N. J: Littlefield, Adams & Co. Piers, E. V. (1984). Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale: Revised Manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. Pope, R. L.; Reynolds, A. L. & Mueller, J. A. (2004). Multicultural competence in student affairs. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books. Shavelson, R. J., Marsh, H. W. (1986). On the structure of self-concept. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Anxiety and cognition. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company. Simmons, R. G., Rosenberg, F., & Rosenberg, M. (1973). Disturbance in the self-image at adolescence. American Sociological Review, 38, 553-568. Steven, H. W., Stigler, J. W., Lucker, G. W., & Lee, S. Y. (1985). Cognitive performance and academic achievement of Japanese, Chinese, and American children. Child Development. 56. 718-34. Stigler, J. W., Smith, S. & Mao, L. W. (1985). The self-perception of competence by Chinese children. Child Development. 56. 1259-1270. Strauss, J. & Goethals, G. R. (1991). The Self: Interdisciplinary Approaches. New York: Springer-Verlag Inc. Tarver Behring, S.; Cabello, B.; Kushida, D. & Murguia, A. (2000). Cultural modifications to current school-based consultation approaches reported by culturally diverse beginning consultants. School Psychology Review, 29(3). 354-67.

34

Turner, S. M., & Mo, L. (1984). Chinese adolescents’ self-concepts as measured by the Offer Self Image Questionnaire. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 13. 131-143. U. S. Department of Education. (2005) Annual report on American schools shows growth and diversity. Retrieved on Oct 10, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/06/06012005.html Wang, A. (2005, May). Precisely measure and compare children’s self-perception cross- culturally with the Cultural Probe Approach. Poster Presented at the 17th Annual Convention of American Psychological Society, Los Angles, CA. Wang, A.; Meredith, W. H. & Tsai, R. (1996). Comparison in three Chinese cultures of scores on the Self-Perception Profile for Children. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 82(3). 1087-1095. Wang, A. & Ren, G. (2004). A comparative study of self-concept in Chinese and American children. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 18(5) 294-299. Wylie, R. C. (1989). Measures of self-concept. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Yang, K. & Bond, M. H. (1980). Ethnic Affirmation by Chinese Bilinguals. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology. 11. 411-425. Zhang, N. & Dixon, D. N. (2003). Acculturation and attitudes of Asian international students toward seeking psychological help. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31(3). 205-22.

35

APPENDIX I

HOW MUCH IS THAT LIKE YOU?

I. Please fill out all of the following items (name is optional if you know your student ID): My name is______. I am ______years old. I am a______(boy, girl). My father’s occupation ______My mother’s occupation ______. Today's date is ______. My student ID is ______. School______City______.

II. Please read the following descriptions, and decide how much the descriptions are like you and how important the descriptions are to you by circling the corresponding numbers: 1. Rate each statement on a 5-point scale. 1 stands for completely disagree. 5 stands for completely agree. Please fill in only one circle that is more suitable for you. 2. Then decide on a 7-point scale how important the aspect described in the statement is to you. 1 stands for not important to you at all. 7 stands for very important to you. For example, for statement #1 - I keep my fingernails short and clean, please rate how much is it important to you. Please fill in only one circle that is more suitable for you. 3. Please respond to all the questions. Don't omit any questions.

Not Very Disagree Agree Important Important

1 I keep my fingernails short and clean 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2 I do NOT know what and how to do when I work 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 I am smart 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 I do NOT respect older people 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 I work for the honor of my group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

36

Not Very Disagree Agree Important Important

6 I do NOT do well in exams 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 I answer teachers' questions in class 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 I do NOT follow class rules 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 I behave appropriately 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10 I am NOT friendly to peers 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11 I have NEVER taken advantage of others 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12 I do NOT work for my group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13 I can remember what I ought to do 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14 I do NOT have rich imagination 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15 I am honest 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16 I am NOT dressed clean 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 I work carefully 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18 I am NOT confident in my activities 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19 I take initiatives to finish homework 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20 I am NOT liked by teachers 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21 I am fair to my classmates 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22 I have lied before 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23 I have strong feelings of responsibility for my group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24 I do NOT take the lead in my work 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25 I work fast 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26 I do NOT care about public properties 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27 I am dressed tidily 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28 I do NOT study hard 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29 I am confident about myself 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30 I get angry easily 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31 I am liked by my parents 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32 I do NOT help my classmates 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33 I have taken others' stuff without permission 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34 I do NOT work for my group enthusiastically 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

37

Not Very Disagree Agree Important Important

35 I take care of my own work 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

36 I do NOT think/respond fast 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

37 I follow my parents’ directions 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

38 I do NOT keep myself clean 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

39 I do homework seriously 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

40 I do NOT have courage 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

41 I obey class discipline 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

42 I am NOT often praised 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

43 I interact with others 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

44 I do NOT follow my teachers’ directions 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

45 I care about my group 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

46 I finish homework independently 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

47 I have strong curiosity 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

48 I am NOT polite 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

49 I dress clean and tidy 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

50 I do NOT act according to teachers' requirements 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

51 I am NOT bad-looking 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am enthusiastic in doing things at the beginning but 52 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 lose interest at the end

53 I am NOT liked by my peers' parents 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

54 I treat others enthusiastically 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

55 I have NEVER taken advantage of others 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

56 I have an unstable mood 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

57 I have self-esteem 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

58 I do NOT take responsibilities for group's matter 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

59 I always respect desks and chairs in my classroom 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

60 I am NOT moody/fussy 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Thank you for your time in completing this survey!

38

APPENDIX II

自我评价量表

一. 请你首先填写下列各项内容 (如果你知道你的学生编号 , 姓名可填可不填 ):

我的名字是 ______我今年_____岁 我是个______生(男/女)

我的学校是 ______我是一个______年级学生

我父亲是一个 ______（职业） 我母亲是一个 ______（职业）

今天是______年___月____日 我的学生编号是 ______

学校______城市______

二. 请你阅读下列各题 , 并根据下列顺序 , 用选相应数字的办法 , 判定这些题目中的描述象 你的程度

和对你的重要性 :

1. 先对每一道题进行 5 等级评价。1 表示完全不同意， 5 表示完全同意。

2. 然后考虑每一道题所描述的内容对你来说的重要性， 将其重要性进行 7 等级的评价。

例如:第一题 经常不经常剪指甲对你有多么重要

1 表示对你来说根本不重要， 7 表示对你十分重要。

3. 请你对所有的题目都认真回答， 不能空题。 在每栏的 5 或 7 个选择中只能选一个数字。

不同意 同意 不重要 非常重要 1 我经常剪指甲 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 我办事没主意 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 我聪明 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 我不尊敬长辈 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 我维护集体荣誉 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 我经常考不好 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 我上课回答老师的问题 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 我不遵守课堂纪律 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

39

不同意 同意 不重要 非常重要 9 我表现好 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 我与同伴不友好 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 我从没有占过别人便宜 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 我不为集体做事 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 我记得住自己应该干的事 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 我想象力不丰富 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15 我诚实 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16 我衣着不干净 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17 我做事细心 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18 我做事没有信心 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19 我主动完成作业 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20 我不被老师喜欢 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21 我对同学公正 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22 我以前说过谎 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23 我集体责任感强 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24 我不带头做事 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25 我做事快 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26 我不爱护公共财产 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27 我穿戴整齐 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28 我学习不努力 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29 我自信 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30 我容易生气 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31 我被家长喜欢 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32 我不帮助同学 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33 我曾经未经许可拿过别人的东西 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34 我不热心为集体做事 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35 我自己做自己的事 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

40

不同意 同意 不重要 非常重要 36 我反应慢 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37 我听家长的话 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 38 我不注意个人卫生 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39 我做作业认真 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40 我没有勇气 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41 我遵守课堂纪律 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 42 我不经常受表扬 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 43 我与别人交往 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 44 我不听老师的话 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 45 我关心集体 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 46 我独立完成作业 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 47 我好奇心强 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48 我对人没礼貌 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 49 我衣着整洁 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50 我不按老师要求去做 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 51 我长得不难看 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 52 我做事虎头蛇尾 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 53 我不被同伴的家长喜欢 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 54 我待人热情 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 55 我从来不占别人的便宜 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 56 我情绪不稳定 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 57 我自尊 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 58 我对集体的事不负责 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 59 我爱护桌椅 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 60 我不任性 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

感谢您参加我们的调查！

41

APPENDIX III

Dear Parents/Guardians:

All students are invited to participate in a research study. The purpose of this study is to learn about students’ perception of themselves in different domains. Surveys will be conducted in a thirty-minute session in school. Students will be asked to complete a set of written questions regarding how they feel and think about themselves. The knowledge gained from this study will contribute to a better understanding of students’ self-perception across different age groups and from different cultural backgrounds. It may be used in the future to improve academic instruction and guidance for students in secondary schools. There are no known risks associated with this research. The process of completing this study is identical to students’ normal school activity, and therefore, no negative reaction is expected during the study. Any information obtained during this study that could identify you or your child will be kept strictly confidential. The results of this study may be published in scientific journals or presented at scientific meetings, but your child’s identity and your identity will never be released. The data will be kept in a locked storage unit. Student names and other identification information will be eliminated during the data entering and analysis process. Participation in this research is voluntary. You and your child are free to decide to or not to participate in this study or to withdraw at any time. Please sign and return the slip below indicating if you would like your child to participate in the study. An incentive will be provided to the students who return the permission slips on time regardless of their participation in the study. If you have any questions before deciding whether to permit your child to participate, Jianxiang Yang or Dr. Aimin Wang would be happy to speak with you. If you have questions regarding your child’s rights as a research participant, please contact the Institutional Review Board at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, 45056, USA, (through the Office for the Advancement of Scholarship and Teaching), telephone (513) 529-3747, fax (513) 529-3762, email [email protected].

Thank you for your participation in this study.

Sincerely,

Jianxiang Yang M. S. Aimin Wang, Ph.D Department of Educational Psychology Department of Educational Psychology Miami University Miami University Oxford, Ohio 45056 Oxford, Ohio 45056 Tel: (513) 529-2432 Tel: (513) 529-2432 Fax: (513) 529-3646 Fax: (513) 529-3646 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

42

Permission Form

Please return this slip to your school within a week. Thank you!

My child, ______(print name) would like to participate in this research study. As the parent/guardian, I give permission for my child to participate.

______(Signature of Parent/Guardian)

OR I am sorry that my child ______(print name) will not participate.

______(Signature of Parent/Guardian)

43