Abstract
- Carlson, N. R. (1993). Psychology: The science of behavior. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
- Findley, M. J., & Cooper, H. M. (1983). Locus of control and academic achievement: A literature review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 419–427.
- Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
- Kalechstein, A., & Nowicki, S., Jr. (1997). A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between control expectancies and academic achievement: An 11-year follow-up to Findley and Cooper. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 123, 29–56.
- Klein, S. B., & Mowrer, R. R. (Eds.). (1989). Contemporary learning theories: Instrumental conditioning theory and the impact of biological constraints on learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Krampen, G., & Wieberg, H.-J. W. (1981). Three aspects of locus of control in German, American, and Japanese university students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 113, 133–134.
- Kren, L. (1992). The moderating effects of locus of control on performance incentives and participation. Human Relations, 42, 991–1012.
- Laffoon, K. S., Jenkins-Friedman, R., & Tollefson, N. (1989). Causal attributions of underachieving gifted, achieving gifted, and non-gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 4–21.
- Lu, S. C. Wu. (2005). The interaction between academic ability, locus of control and reward contingency. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 65(7–A), 2478.
- McClelland, R., Yewchuk, C., & Mulcahy, R. (1991). Locus of control in underachieving and achieving gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 380–392.
- Moran, J. D., & Lion, E. Y. (1982). Effects of reward on creativity in college students of two levels of ability. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 54, 43–48.
- Nowicki, S., Jr., & Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 148–154.
- Powers, S., & Douglas, P. (1983). Attributions for success and failure of academically gifted high school students. Psychological Reports, 53, 597–598.
- Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1, Whole No. 609).
- Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 736–750.
- Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.
- Thorndike, E. L. (1905). The elements of psychology. New York: Seiler.
- Trusty, M. L., & Macan, T. H. (1995). Personal control: Effects of reward contingency and locus of control. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 10, 201–214.
- Van Boxtel, H. W., & Mönks, F. J. (1992). General, social, and academic self-concepts of gifted adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 169–186.
- Winefield, A. H., Barnett, J. A., & Tiggemann, M. (1984). Learned helplessness and IQ differences. Personality & Individual Differences, 5, 493–500.
- Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement on how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.
- Volume 32
- Issue 2
- Publication Date: Winter 2008
- Page Number(s): 230-244
- DOI: 10.4219/jeg-2008-848
A Study of Reward Preference in Taiwanese Gifted and Nongifted Students With Differential Locus of Control
Su Chen Wu and Robert T. Elliott
The purpose of the study was to investigate whether gifted and nongifted students’ preferences for different types of reward were affected by differential locus of control. In total, 181 gifted and 107 nongifted junior high school students in Taiwan participated. The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale was used as a measure of locus of control. A survey of reward preference was designed to look at students’ evaluations of the reward systems. The results showed that the gifted students tended to evaluate competition rewards significantly higher when compared to the nongifted students; the nongifted students tended to evaluate chance rewards significantly higher than the gifted students. However, there was no significant difference between the gifted students and nongifted students in their evaluation of performance rewards. An interaction effect between ability and locus of control for chance rewards indicated that the nongifted/moderate and nongifted/external students preferred chance rewards more than the other groups. Irrespective of ability level, however, the findings indicated that the higher the internality, the higher were the students’ preferences for the contingent (competition and performance) rewards.
Cart Summary
You have 25 item(s) in your cart.
Last item you added is
Dimensions of Competitive and Cooperative Learning Among Gifted Learners.