| Literature DB >> 30110383 |
Hyemin Han1, Youn-Jeng Choi2, Kelsie J Dawson1, Changwoo Jeong3.
Abstract
Incremental implicit theories are associated with a belief regarding it is possible to improve one's intelligence or ability through efforts. Previous studies have demonstrated that incremental implicit theories contributed to better academic achievement and positive youth development. Our study aimed to examine whether incremental implicit theories of morality significantly influenced change in students' engagement in voluntary service activities. In our study, 54 Korean college students for Study 1 and 180 Korean 8th graders for Study 2 were recruited to conduct two two-wave studies. We surveyed participants' implicit theories of morality and participation in voluntary service activities. The effect of implicit theories of morality on change in service engagement was analyzed through regression analysis. In Study 1, the moral growth mindset significantly moderated longitudinal change in service engagement. In Study 2, the moral growth mindset significantly influenced engagement in art-related activities, while it significantly moderated change in engagement in youth-related activities.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30110383 PMCID: PMC6093698 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202327
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Comparing people with two different types of implicit theories.
| Incremental implicit theorists | Entity implicit theorists | |
|---|---|---|
| Belief about change | Believe that one’s intelligence and ability can change over time | Believe that one’s intelligence and ability are fixed and do not change |
| Belief about improvement | Believe that it is possible to improve one’s intelligence and ability through efforts | Believe that it is impossible to improve one’s intelligence and ability through efforts |
| Motivation | Have strong motivation to try hard to master skills | Have no motivation for self-improvement |
| Goal setting | Set mastery goals | Set performance goals |
| Reaction and interpretation to a failure | Show a strong will to learn from a failure and perceive it as a signal informing the necessity of more efforts | Show no will to learn from a failure and perceive it as a signal informing lack of one’s ability |
Descriptive statistics and reliability indicators (Study 1).
| Item | Mean | Median | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis | Item-test correlation | Item-test correlation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. You have a certain morality and character, and you can’t really do much to improve it. | 4.73 | 5.00 | 1.80 | -.57 | 2.21 | .47 | - |
| 2. Your morality and character are something about you that you can’t improve very much. | 5.37 | 6.00 | 1.19 | -.86 | 3.33 | .73 | .78 |
| 3. No matter who you are, you can significantly improve your morality and character. | 5.24 | 5.00 | 1.20 | -.89 | 3.75 | .61 | .67 |
| 4. To be honest, you can’t really improve your morality and character. | 5.12 | 5.00 | 1.32 | -.51 | 2.43 | .77 | .80 |
| 5. You can always substantially improve your morality and character. | 4.64 | 5.00 | 1.37 | -.47 | 2.43 | .83 | .86 |
| 6. You can improve your basic morality and character considerably. | 4.53 | 5.00 | 1.27 | -.39 | 2.55 | .82 | .86 |
a Reverse coded items.
Calculated factor loadings from EFA.
| Study 1 | Study 2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| With Item 1 | Without Item 1 | With Item 1 | Without Item 1 | |
| Item 1 | .19 | - | .01 | - |
| Item 2 | .70 | .70 | .62 | .62 |
| Item 3 | .53 | .54 | .66 | .66 |
| Item 4 | .73 | .72 | .81 | .81 |
| Item 5 | .85 | .85 | .84 | .84 |
| Item 6 | .85 | .85 | .78 | .78 |
Fig 1Results of confirmatory factor analysis of the implicit theories of morality survey form without item 1 in Study 1.
*** p < .001.
Estimated regression coefficients in Study 1.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Controls | |||
| Gender | -1.79 | -1.79 | -2.73 |
| Age | -.01 | -.01 | -.02 |
| Years of college education | 1.12 | 1.12 | .98 |
| Main effects | |||
| Initial service engagement | .27 | .27 | -5.19 |
| Moral growth mindset | .01 | -1.40 | |
| Interaction | |||
| Initial service engagement x moral growth mindset | 1.17 | ||
| 1.52 | 1.19 | 3.20 | |
| Adjusted | .04 | .02 | .20 |
| Δ | .00 | 11.88 | |
| Δ | .00 | .18 |
Estimated coefficients were standardized.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.
Fig 2Change in service engagement among high and low moral growth mindset score groups.
Descriptive statistics and reliability indicators (Study 2).
| Item | Mean | Median | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis | Item-test correlation | Item-test correlation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. You have a certain morality and character, and you can’t really do much to improve it. | 5.21 | 6.00 | 1.33 | -.60 | 2.77 | .24 | - |
| 2. Your morality and character are something about you that you can’t improve very much. | 5.12 | 6.00 | 1.41 | -.44 | 2.19 | .73 | .73 |
| 3. No matter who you are, you can significantly improve your morality and character. | 5.21 | 6.00 | 1.41 | -.65 | 2.86 | .73 | .76 |
| 4. To be honest, you can’t really improve your morality and character. | 5.23 | 6.00 | 1.37 | -.61 | 2.30 | .84 | .85 |
| 5. You can always substantially improve your morality and character. | 4.96 | 5.00 | 1.42 | -.29 | 2.55 | .84 | .86 |
| 6. You can improve your basic morality and character considerably. | 4.64 | 5.00 | 1.26 | -.09 | 2.53 | .78 | .82 |
a Reverse coded items.
Fig 3Results of confirmatory factor analysis of the implicit theories of morality survey form without item 1 in Study 1.
*** p < .001.
Estimated regression coefficients in Study 2.
| T2 Engagement in Religion | T2 Engagement in Charity | |||||
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
| Controls | ||||||
| Gender | .06 | .05 | .06 | -.02 | -.03 | -.03 |
| Main effects | ||||||
| Initial engagement | .55 | .55 | .28 | .45 | .44 | .53 |
| Moral growth mindset | .03 | -.06 | .06 | .10 | ||
| Interaction | ||||||
| Initial engagement x moral growth mindset | .29 | -.10 | ||||
| 34.85 | 23.20 | 17.64 | 20.42 | 13.85 | 10.35 | |
| Adjusted | .30 | .29 | .29 | .19 | .19 | .18 |
| Δ | .23 | .97 | .76 | .09 | ||
| Δ | .00 | .00 | .00 | .00 | ||
| T2 Engagement in Art | T2 Engagement in Youth | |||||
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
| Controls | ||||||
| Gender | .00 | -.02 | .00 | .10 | .10 | .11 |
| Main effects | ||||||
| Initial engagement | .46 | .44 | -.02 | .49 | .49 | -.41 |
| Moral growth mindset | .15 | -.09 | -.10 | -.31 | ||
| Interaction | ||||||
| Initial engagement x moral growth mindset | .55 | 1.04 | ||||
| 21.23 | 15.90 | 12.28 | 27.02 | 17.97 | 15.93 | |
| Adjusted | .20 | .22 | .22 | .23 | .23 | .26 |
| Δ | 4.37 | 1.30 | .14 | 7.69 | ||
| Δ | .02 | .01 | .00 | .03 | ||
† p < .1.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .00
Fig 4Change in engagement in activities offered by art-related organizations among high and low moral growth mindset score groups.
Fig 5Change in engagement in activities offered by youth-related organizations among high and low moral growth mindset score groups.