Higher Education

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00434-z

Can mindsets influence college students’ motivation

to learn? Findings from the United States
and the United Arab Emirates

Antje von Suchodoletz 1 & Johanna Rahn 2 & Iryna Nadyukova 1 & Lydia Barza 3 &
Anja Achtziger 2

# Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract
Changing mindsets may influence college students’ motivation to learn, which in turn affects
how they engage in learning activities. Based on mindset theory (Gollwitzer 1990; Gollwitzer
2012), this study explored the extent to which the concepts of the deliberative and implemental
mindset are value-laden, and hence, might have different effects for individuals from different
cultural backgrounds. More specifically, we investigated if these types of mindsets have a
positive or negative effect on college students’ motivation to learn in the context of higher
education in two different countries, the United States (US) and the United Arab Emirates
(UAE). Participants were 327 college students: 205 from the UAE and 122 from the US.
Students were randomly assigned to one of four conditions (neutral, deliberative or
implemental mindset, or control). Questionnaires assessed their motivation to learn, defined
as attitudes, values, and goals on academic tasks, and self-regulatory strategies to complete
them. Results suggested that differences in the consequences of being in a deliberative mindset
for college students’ motivation to learn for students from the US and the UAE; only students
in the US sample were disadvantaged, whereas no such effect was found for students from the
UAE. Being in an implemental mindset did not benefit students’ motivation to learn. Cultural
factors that may explain the results are discussed. The findings reinforce the need to examine
motivation and possible interventions aimed at strengthening motivation in the context of
higher education across individuals from different cultural background.

Keywords College students . Motivation to learn . Deliberative mindset . Implemental mindset .

Cross-cultural

According to social-cognitive theories, motivation can “be changed by altering the conditions in the
achievement context” (Urdan and Buchmann 2018, p. 114). Social psychology research suggests
that mindsets can influence an individual’s affect, cognition, and behavior (Achtziger & Gollwitzer,

* Antje von Suchodoletz

avs5@nyu.edu

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

 Higher Education

2018; Gollwitzer, 1990, 2012). Mindsets are closely linked to motivation and volition, in particular,
when it comes to goal setting and goal striving. Mindset theory (Gollwitzer, 1990, 2012), a
prominent approach to investigating mindset effects, assumes that a specific cognitive tuning of
mind can be experimentally induced, and that this manipulation may have carry over effects on
various psychological processes, such as motivation and volition.
Two mindsets that are based on mindset theory (Gollwitzer, 1990, 2012) have been extensively
studied: the deliberative and the implemental mindset (for an overview see Achtziger and Gollwitzer
2018). In the deliberative mindset, one reflects on the desirability and feasibility of potential goals.
The implemental mindset is centered around planning how to implement actions that support goal
attainment. However, to date, studies on the effects of deliberative and implemental mindsets have
only included individuals from Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic countries
(WEIRD; Henrich et al. 2010), predominately the United States (e.g., Armor and Taylor 2003;
Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones 2002; Taylor and Gollwitzer 1995) and Western European
countries (e.g., Bayer and Gollwitzer 2005; Brandstätter and Frank 2002; Keller and Gollwitzer
2017; Rahn et al. 2016a; Rahn et al. 2016b). Much less is known about the effects of mindsets on
motivation and volition in individuals from other cultural backgrounds. This is surprising given that
more than 30 years ago, Maehr called researchers “to pay closer attention to the cultural influences
on motivation” (cited in Urdan and Buchmann 2018, p. 114). Yet, the vast majority of research on
motivation and volition reflects what Usher (2018) calls “Whiteness of motivation research”, i.e., a
dominance of research gathered by and from White and WEIRD people. This “Whiteness” should
be overcome by sociocultural approaches that examine “the process by which individuals internalize
social and cultural influences and how this process ultimately impacts and shapes one’s motivation”
(Zusho and Clayton 2011, p. 249). With regard to mindsets, it may be assumed that their effects on
one’s motivation and volition may differ, depending on the particular sociocultural values and norms
that individuals hold (Duda and Allison 1989; Trommsdorff 2009). For example, a higher value
placed on the intention to increase one’s social capital may be at play in social-oriented societies, as
compared to individual-oriented societies that place a greater value on an individual’s output that is
independent of others (Tao and Hong 2013). Empirical support for the assumption that mindsets
might actually interact with sociocultural values and norms comes from research showing interac-
tions between personality traits and mindsets (e.g., positivity of self-concept: Bayer and Gollwitzer
2005; social anxiety: Hiemisch et al. 2002). In the present study, we explore the extent to which the
concepts of the deliberative and implemental mindset are value-laden, and hence, might have
different effects for individuals from different cultural backgrounds. More specifically, we investi-
gate if these types of mindsets have a positive or negative effect on college students’ motivation to
learn in the context of higher education in two different countries, the United States and the United
Arab Emirates.

Theoretical background

Deliberative versus implemental mindset: different states of mind

Mindset theory (Gollwitzer 1990, 2012) claims that reflecting on the desirability and feasibility
of potential goals versus planning how to implement actions that support goal attainment leads
to different states of mind. The deliberative mindset is related to goal setting and activated
when people start thinking about an unresolved issue that is still a wish or desire, and
deliberate about the pros and cons of whether to realize it. The implemental mindset prepares
Higher Education

for goal striving and is activated as soon as people set a goal by specifying when, where, and
how actions are to be initiated (Achtziger and Gollwitzer 2018; Gollwitzer 1990, 2012). Goal
setting is, in an ideal course of action, followed by goal striving. It is therefore assumed that
individuals will first engage in the deliberative mindset in which they consider the pros and
cons of a wish that may become a goal. After the individual decides that the goal is likely
achievable and desirable, the individual adopts an implemental mindset. This natural goal-
setting-goal-striving sequence can, however, be disrupted under specific conditions (for
example, when it becomes clear that one could not proceed with goal striving due to invincible
obstacles). In such instances, an individual might re-deliberate the feasibility of a previously
set goal. Nonetheless, one cannot be in the deliberative and implemental mindset at the same
time (Achtziger and Gollwitzer 2018; Gollwitzer 1990, 2012). It is also assumed that both
mindsets do not affect one another “in the sense that a preceding strong deliberative mindset
makes for a strong succeeding implemental mindset; it all depends on how intensely people
become involved with solving the task of choosing between potential goals and with planning
the implantation of a chosen goal, respectively.” (Gollwitzer 2012, p. 539).

Mindset effects on college students’ motivation to learn

In academic settings, motivation to learn refers to students’ attitudes, values, and goals on
academic tasks, and their self-regulatory strategies to complete them. Highly motivated
students value what they are learning (You 2018). The perceived value of a task is not only
reflected in classroom interest, persistence, and satisfaction with one’s own learning but also in
the selection of self-regulatory strategies to accomplish a task (Wigfield et al. 2004; You 2018).
One key self-regulatory strategy in academic contexts is a student’s ability to inhibit an
impulse to follow short-term desires in order to persist in goal-directed behavior
(Bembenutty and Karabenick 1998, 2004).
Previous research on mindset theory (Gollwitzer 1990, 2012) suggests that one’s motivation
to learn is more likely to be strengthened by the implemental than by the deliberative mindset.
Compared to the deliberative mindset, the implemental mindset has been associated with
increased self-esteem and optimism about the degree of personal control over desired action
outcomes (Gollwitzer and Kinney 1989; Keller and Gollwitzer 2017; Taylor and Gollwitzer
1995), resulting in higher achievement motivation (Brandstätter et al. 2015). Such effects of
the implemental mindset can be linked to research on individuals’ view of the self, arguing that
one’s sense of control and autonomy is closely related to motivational processes (Ryan and
Deci 2000). The implemental mindset has also been found to lead to greater persistence in
difficult tasks compared to being in a deliberative state of mind (Brandstätter and Frank 2002).
It is argued that students who believe in their capabilities to master academic tasks (Taylor and
Gollwitzer 1995), who are strongly focused on a task (Büttner et al. 2014), and who are
persistent when faced with obstacles (Brandstätter and Frank 2002) do better academically
than students who ruminate about the potential for success or failure which is usually observed
when being in a deliberative state of mind (Gollwitzer 1990).

Sociocultural approach

The “Whiteness of motivation research” is reflected in conclusions about universal motiva-

tional processes based on evidence reflecting the experience and perspectives of WEIRD,
predominately White, people (Usher 2018). A prominent claim is that “human motivational
 Higher Education

processes are either absolute (culturally invariant) or universal” and thus “viewed as culture
free” (Usher 2018, p. 132). Despite attempts to facilitate the formulation of theories that are
culturally grounded (Urdan and Buchmann 2018; Usher 2018), research examining psycho-
logical processes across individuals from different cultural background is still scarce. Instead,
mainstream research reflects WEIRD and White norms and values, including secular individ-
ualism (Usher 2018). However, it cannot be assumed that its tenets are universal or etic within
social-oriented (collective) and non-secular communities (King and McInerney 2014).
Much of the limited prior motivation research in social-oriented communities has included
samples from Asian societies (e.g., Martin et al. 2015; Salili 1996; Yin 2018). More recently,
research has become interested in populations from Arab societies, in particular, Gulf Coop-
eration Council (GCC) countries, to test Western motivation research findings (e.g., Abu-Hilal
and Bahri 2000; Engin and McKeown 2017; Marsh et al. 2013; Marsh et al. 2014). While
acknowledging that Asian and Arab cultural groups each have their own cultural heritage, both
share a social-oriented conceptualization of self that is based on societal and familial expec-
tations (Engin and McKeown 2017; Ng and Wang 2019). Conformity, family, and community
are highly valued, resulting in a preference for goals of the family (and more broadly the
collective) over individual ones (Cohen 2016; Ng and Wang 2019; Sidani and Thornberry
2010). Despite similarities, there are profound differences between Asian and Arab cultural
groups that might be relevant to motivation in academic contexts. For example, Asian cultures
place an emphasis of accuracy of one’s performance and ultimately self-perfection, without
celebrating one’s success (Ng and Wang 2019). Arab cultures emphasize “form over function,
affect over accuracy, and image over meaning” (Zaharna 1995, p. 241) with a futuristic versus
short-term orientation (Gupta et al. 2002). Consequently, the focus might not necessarily be on
the outcome being correct (as it would be in Asian cultures; Ng and Wang 2019) but more on
how it is viewed by others. The present study focuses on the United Arab Emirates (UAE)
where the social structure is reflective of such an emphasis on others’ viewpoints, such that, for
example, parents and other family elders heavily influence the decisions and goals of younger
Emiratis (Daleure et al. 2015).

Applying the sociocultural approach to the study of mindset effects

To the best of our knowledge, there is no research that examines potential interactions between
sociocultural aspects and mindsets. Yet, it seems reasonable to assume that psychological
processes involving mindsets differ for individuals from different sociocultural backgrounds.
The deliberative mindset, for example, has been found detrimental to goal achievement.
Previous research with samples from individual-oriented societies has demonstrated that
inducing a deliberative mindset resulted in weaker goal striving and performance compared
to inducing an implemental mindset (Armor and Taylor 2003; Brandstätter et al. 2015; Rahn
et al. 2016b). The deliberative mindset emphasizes pros and cons of a wish that has not yet
been turned into a binding goal. The focus is on generating reasons for doing (or not doing)
something. Individuals from individual-oriented societies might particularly focus on reasons
specific to the individual and maybe one’s lack of abilities to accomplish a goal. In contrast,
individuals from Arab cultures might concentrate on how their goals might positively reflect
upon their family or community (Najm 2015). It can be speculated that a higher value is placed
on the intention to increase one’s social capital (i.e., the reputation of one’s family or
community) even if the output may be imperfect (Najm 2015). Thus, the deliberative mindset
Higher Education

might activate different goal-relevant sociocultural norms and values that result in different
effects on motivation in Arab cultures compared with individual-oriented cultures.
The implemental mindset concentrates on one’s goal attainment by generating plans on
how to reach a goal. The focus is on the individual and what he or she can do to be successful,
resulting in increased personal control over intended action outcomes (Achtziger and
Gollwitzer 2018; Gollwitzer 1990, 2012). Consequently, the implemental mindset might
trigger goal-relevant values and norms that are more relevant to individuals from individual-
oriented societies, such as independence. Beneficial effects of the implemental mindset may be
particularly strong for individuals holding individual-oriented values and norms, whereas it
may not be found among individuals holding social-oriented values and norms since it may not
trigger goal-relevant sociocultural values and norms.

The present study

Induction of specific mindsets may be effective in addressing the issue of motivation to

persist in academic tasks. The present study aims to contribute to the understanding of
cross-cultural variation in the effectiveness of mindset manipulations and their potential
in changing one’s motivation regarding academic goals. To address the objective, we
included a sample from an individual-oriented society, the United States (US), and a
sample from a traditionally social-oriented society, the UAE. We expected that being in
an implemental mindset strengthens college students’ motivation to learn, compared to
the deliberative and a control condition in the (individual-oriented) US sample. Yet, it
remains unclear whether the same mindset effects on motivation to learn would also
occur in the sample from the UAE. Given the limited research in Arab populations in
general, we leave it as an open research question.

Method

Participants

In total, 327 college students (50% female; missing information for 16 students) participated in
the study: 205 students from the UAE (52% females, Mage = 20.45, SD = 2.18) and 122
students from the US (46% females, Mage = 27.69, SD = 7.54). Additional demographic back-
ground information was asked from students, including their nationality, major, and GPA. On
average, students’ GPA was 3.17 (SD = 0.55; missing information for 48 students). Students
from the UAE were of Arab background and either UAE nationals (85%) or from other Middle
East countries. Students from the US were all US nationals. Most students were enrolled in a
Bachelor’s program (UAE: n = 145; US: n = 100).
Participants were recruited at a public university in the UAE and, in the US, online via
MTurk, an Amazon platform where individuals can accept tasks (e.g., surveys) in exchange for
payment (https://www.mturk.com/). MTurk participants were selected based on several
screening questions, including self-reported student status, country of origin (US), and country
where they are currently enrolled at university (US). Participants who did not meet all criteria
or did not pass additional screening questions were excluded. Participant compensation in the
UAE comprised a lottery for two tablet computers while participants recruited through MTurk
were paid 4 USD.
 Higher Education

Mindset manipulations

The mindset manipulations followed Gollwitzer and Kinney (1989) (see also Bayer and
Gollwitzer 2005; Hügelschäfer and Achtziger 2014; Rahn et al. 2016a), a widely accepted
method of mindset induction. Students in the deliberative mindset condition (UAE: n = 49;
US: n = 33) were asked to write down an unresolved personal issue related to their academic
life in the form of “Should I do X, or shouldn’t I?” They then listed short- and long-term
positive and negative consequences of their action or inaction, rated the valence of these
consequences, and estimated the probability of their occurrence. Students in the implemental
mindset condition (UAE: n = 52; US: n = 32) indicated an academic goal, of which they had
not yet taken any action. They listed five to seven steps describing when, where, and how they
were planning to carry out their intentions. Induction of both mindsets took between 10 and
20 min.
The effects of the deliberative and the implemental mindset were compared with a control
condition in which no specific mindset was induced. Students in the control condition (UAE:
n = 50; US: n = 29) just completed the survey, without prior mindset induction. We also
included a neutral mindset condition in which students (UAE: n = 54; US: n = 28) recalled
activities they do on a normal day in their college life (see Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones
2002) to account for the argument that not asking participants to work on anything prior to
measuring mindset effects might be problematic because of different procedures and work-
loads. It took them between 10 and 15 min to complete the task. Note that the three mindset
manipulations were introduced as being independent from the subsequent task, since the study
aimed at exploring carry over effects of mindsets on motivation to learn.

Measures

The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich et al. 1993) and
the Academic Delay of Gratification Scale (ADOG; Bembenutty and Karabenick
1998) measured students’ motivation to learn. The MSLQ has been widely used in
previous research to assess students’ engagement with academic course materials, their
goals and value beliefs for a course, and their learning strategies (for a review, see
Duncan and McKeachie 2005). We used items related to learning values (14 items;
e.g., “It is important for me to learn the course material in this class”) and expectancy
(12 items; e.g., “I am certain I can master the skills being taught in this class”) that
were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not true at all for me to 7 = very true for
me). Reliability and validity of the MSLQ have been demonstrated in samples of
college students in the US and other countries (Bong 2009; Pintrich et al. 1993).
The ADOG measures students’ willingness to delay immediate gratification to satisfy
impulses in favor of pursuing academic goals that are associated with later rewards. The scale
consists of ten items, each of which contains a pair of scenarios that students typically face.
While one scenario represents more immediate gratification (e.g., “Miss several classes to
accept an invitation for a very interesting trip”), the other represents a delayed gratification
option (e.g., “Delay going on the trip until the course is over”). Items were rated on a 4-point
scale (1 = definitely choose A [i.e., immediate gratification] to 4 = definitely choose B [i.e.,
delayed gratification]) so that higher scores reflect greater academic delay of gratification
skills. Previous research has documented acceptable psychometric properties of the measure
(Bembenutty 2007; Bembenutty and Karabenick 1998, 2004).
Higher Education

Procedure

Students were randomly assigned to four conditions: control, neutral mindset, implemental
mindset, or deliberative mindset. The distribution of conditions in the total samples, as well as
in each country, was balanced (24% control, 25% neutral, 25% deliberative, and 26%
implemental). Students in the three mindset conditions started with the condition-specific
mindset manipulation. All participants completed an online survey (using the software
soscisurvey) that assessed their motivation to learn. The online survey consisted of three
questionnaires in random order, two of which were used in the present study. It took between
20 and 30 min to complete the entire survey. The online survey also included a manipulation
check to control how actively students engaged with the mindset manipulations (Brandstätter
and Frank 2002; Rahn et al. 2016a; Rahn et al. 2016b). We checked how well they followed
instructions on 9-point scales, with higher values indicating compliance with instructions.
Overall means suggested successful mindset inductions (MNeutral = 7.24, SD = 1.34;
MDeliberative = 7.18, SD = 1.01; MImplemental = 7.22, SD = 1.28).

Statistical analyses

First, measurement invariance of each questionnaire was tested, using confirmatory factor
analyses (CFA). We used a technique that allows testing of configural, metric, and scalar
invariance across groups in one analytical step. The Chi-square difference test was used to
determine measurement invariance by comparing the metric model (constrains the factor
loadings to be equal across groups) against the configural (i.e., unconstrained) model, and
the scalar model (constrains the intercepts to be equal across groups) against both, the metric
model and the configural model. Measurement invariance was assumed if the difference
between models was not significant. Model fit of the configural model was evaluated based
on the cutoffs for RMSEA < .08, CFI > .90, and TLI > .90; a good model fit was assumed if
SRMR < .08 and an acceptable model fit if SRMR < .10 (Hu and Bentler 1999; Kline 2005).
After establishing invariance across samples, factor scores were extracted and used in
regression analyses to compare students’ motivation to learn across the four different condi-
tions and two countries. Separate regressions were run for each dependent variable.1 The first
regression model included demographic control variables; students’ age, gender (female = 1),
and GPA. Students’ age and GPA were entered as continuous variables. The next model added
the country (UAE = 1). The third model added the four experimental conditions (control group
as the reference2). The final model added the interactions between country and condition. Both
unstandardized and standardized coefficients are reported in Tables 2, 3, and 4.
All analyses were run in Mplus Version 7 (Muthen & Muthen, 2012–2015) using
ESTIMATOR=MLR because of its advantage to account for non-normality of the data
(Wang and Wang 2012). There was substantial missing data for some covariates (in particular,
GPA). The missingness was examined and determined to be missing at random (MAR), with
more missing demographic data in the UAE sample. Missing data was handled by the full
information maximum likelihood (FIML) technique.

1
We checked the robustness of our results and rerun all models excluding the participants who said that they did
not answer the survey questions seriously (n = 16, all in the UAE sample). The pattern of results did not change.
2
We also reran the regression models with the neutral mindset group as the reference.
 Higher Education

Results

Tests of measurement invariance

For the MSLQ, the measurement invariance testing was done on the level of the subscales.
Following Pintrich et al. (1993), two factors were specified, learning values (subscales: intrinsic
goal orientation, extrinsic goal orientation, task value) and expectancy (subscales: control beliefs
about learning, self-efficacy for learning and performance). Measurement invariance could not be
established across all subscales (Table 1). The scalar model fit the data significantly worse than the
configural model (p = .00) and the metric model (p = .00). Intercepts were not equal across groups
(i.e., no scalar invariance). After isolating items with non-invariant intercepts across groups at the
item level, we rerun the invariance model excluding non-invariant items (all items of the subscale
external goal orientation). This revised model suggested that full measurement invariance could be
established (Table 1). The model showed an acceptable fit (RMSEA = .045; 90% CI RMSEA =
.000–.168; CFI = .997; TLI = .984; SRMR = .013).
A one-factor structure was tested for the ADOG scale, reflecting academic delay of
gratification (Bembenutty and Karabenick 1998). Full measurement invariance could not be
established across all ten items (Table 1). The scalar model fit the data significantly worse than
the configural model (p = .05). We identified items with invariant parameters (intercept) across
groups and rerun the invariance model excluding non-invariant items (item 3). The results of
the revised measurement invariance model supported the assumption that full measurement
invariance was established (Table 1). The model showed an acceptable fit (RMSEA = .047;
90% CI RMSEA = .010–.073; CFI = .941; TLI = .921; SRMR = .056).

Motivation to learn: mindset and country effects

Learning values The results for learning values are shown in Table 2. A marginal significant
main effect of students’ age was found, with older students scoring higher on learning values.
In addition, students reporting a higher GPA had higher scores on the learning value dimension
than students with lower GPA scores. With the control condition as reference group, a marginal
significant main effect was found for the neutral mindset: being assigned to the neutral mindset
decreased students’ learning values (model 3). With the neutral mindset condition as reference
group, a marginal significant main effect of the implemental mindset was found: being
assigned to the implemental mindset increased students’ learning values (model 3, coefficient
in parentheses).

Table 1 Measurement invariance testing: comparison of configural, metric, and scalar models

Model comparison Chi-squarea dfa p valuea

Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

Metric model against configural model 1.60 (1.69) 3 (2) .66 (.43)
Scalar model against configural model 21.58 (2.69) 6 (4) .00 (.61)
Scalar model against metric model 24.77 (0.83) 3 (2) .00 (.66)
Academic Delay of Gratification Scale
Metric model against configural model 12.39 (6.37) 9 (8) .19 (.61)
Scalar model against configural model 28.69 (18.61) 18 (16) .05 (.29)
Scalar model against metric model 16.27 (12.45) 9 (8) .06 (.13)
a Revised by excluding non-invariant items in parentheses
 Higher Education

Table 2 Regression analyses predicting students’ motivation to learn: learning values

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β
Age .016 .009 .116+ .018 .010 .128+ .017 .010 .122+ .019 .010 .135+
Gendera .131 .103 .151 .127 .104 .146 .132 .103 .152 .150 .104 .172
GPA .327 .101 .206** .349 .111 .219** .338 .112 .213** .337 .112 .212**
Countryb .051 .143 .059 .039 .143 .045 −.191 .244 −.109
Neutral mindsetc − .275 .148 − .135+ − .462 .193 − .226*
Deliberative mindsetc, d − .203 .151 − .103 − .575 .212 − .291**
(.071) (.146) (.036) (.114) (.242) (− .057)
Implemental mindsetc, d − .054 .138 − .027 − .026 .159 − .013
(.221) (.131) (.111+) (.436) (.195) (.218*)
Neutral mindsetc .331 .292 .131
X countryb
Deliberative mindsetc, d .676 .303 .271*
X countryb (.344) (.300) (.138)
Implemental mindsetc, d − .059 .266 − .023
X countryb (− .390) (.262) (− .155)
R2 .075* .076* .092** .120**
+ p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
a Gender (female = 1)
b Country (UAE = 1)
c Reference group is control condition
d Reference group is neutral mindset condition with estimates in parentheses
 Higher Education

In model 4, interaction terms between mindsets and country were added. With the control
condition as the reference group, we found a significant interaction between deliberative
mindset and country that indicated an advantage for students from the UAE by .271 SD over
students from the US in the relationship of a deliberative mindset versus control with learning
values motivation. A simple slope analysis further showed that, in the sample from the US
only, the deliberative mindset significantly lowered learning values compared to the control
(t(274) = − 3.03, p = .003), whereas no such effect was found in the UAE sample (p = .631).
No significant interactions were found when the neutral mindset was used as reference group.
The effect size of the final regression (model 4 in Table 2) was R2 = .12.

Expectancy The results for expectancy are shown in Table 3. A marginal significant main effect of
students’ age was found, with older students scoring higher on expectancy. In addition, students who
reported a higher GPA had higher scores on the expectancy dimension than students with low GPA
scores. With the control condition as reference group, a marginal significant main effect was found
for the neutral mindset: being assigned to the neutral mindset lowered students’ expectancy (model
3). With the neutral condition as reference group, a marginal significant main effect of the
implemental mindset was found: being assigned to the implemental mindset increased students’
expectancies of success (model 3, coefficient in parentheses).
In model 4, interaction terms between mindsets and country were added. With the control
condition as the reference group, we found a significant interaction between deliberative
mindset and country that indicated an advantage for students from the UAE by .269 SD over
students from the US in the relationship of a deliberative mindset versus control with
expectancy. A simple slope analysis further showed that, in the sample from the US only,
the deliberative mindset significantly lowered students’ expectancy compared to the control
(t(274) = −2.73, p = .007), whereas no such effect was found in the UAE sample (p = .751). No
significant interactions were found when the neutral mindset was used as reference group. The
effect size of the final regression (model 4 in Table 3) was R2 = .13.

Academic delay of gratification The results for academic delay of gratification are shown in
Table 4. Significant main effects were found for age, gender, and GPA. Females reported being
better able to delay gratification in order to achieve academic goals than males, as did older students
and students reporting a higher GPA. With the control condition as reference group, a significant
main effect of the neutral mindset was found: being assigned to the neutral mindset lowered
students’ self-assessed ability to delay gratification. In addition, a marginal significant effect of the
implemental mindset was found: being assigned to the implemental mindset decreased students’
ability to delay gratification (model 3). No significant interactions were found with the control
condition as reference group (model 4). We also did not find significant main effects (model 3) or
interaction effects (model 4) when the neutral mindset condition was used as the reference group.
The effect size of the final regression (model 4 in Table 4) was R2 = .12.

Discussion

Motivation to learn is essential for academic success in primary, secondary, and tertiary
education (e.g., Friedman and Mandel 2011; Mega et al. 2014; Suchodoletz et al. 2015).
Yet, previous studies mainly investigated motivation in samples from WEIRD societies with a
 Higher Education

Table 3 Regression analyses predicting students’ motivation to learn: expectancy

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β
Age .013 .007 .123+ .013 .008 .122+ .013 .008 .117+ .014 .007 .132+
Gendera .076 .079 .113 .076 .079 .113 .078 .079 .116 .092 .079 .137
GPA .287 .077 .234** .286 .085 .234** .280 .086 .228** .281 .085 .229**
Countryb − .002 .109 − .001 − .010 .109 − .007 − .168 .188 − .124
Neutral mindsetc − .194 .114 − .124+ − .312 .146 − .199*
Deliberative mindsetc, d − .163 .115 − .107 − .448 .160 − .293**
(.071) (.146) (.036) (− .135) (.178) (− .089)
Implemental mindsetc, d − .054 .107 − .035 − .019 .128 − .013
(.221) (.131) (.111+) (.293) (.148) (.190*)
Neutral mindsetc X countryb .211 .223 .108
Deliberative mindsetc, d X countryb .517 .228 .269*
(.306) (.225) (.159)
Implemental mindsetc, d X countryb − .068 .207 −.035
(− .279) (.202) (.143)
R2 .090** .090** .103** .132**
+ p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
a Gender (female = 1)
b Country (UAE = 1)
c Reference group is control condition
d Reference group is neutral mindset condition, with estimates in parentheses
Table 4 Regression analyses predicting students’ motivation to learn: academic delay of gratification

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β
Age .013 .006 .130* .017 .007 .169* .016 .007 .154* .016 .007 .154*
Gendera .202 .075 .317** .194 .076 .304* .192 .075 .302* .184 .076 .288*
GPA .170 .072 .146* .220 .081 .189** .223 .080 .192** .235 .080 .203**
Countryb .118 .104 .092 .111 .102 .086 .283 .160 .221+
Neutral mindsetc − .302 .099 − .203** − .233 .140 − .156+
Deliberative mindsetc, d − .157 .105 − .108 − .051 .152 − .035
(.146) (.098) (.100) (.182) (.155) (.126)
Implemental mindsetc, d − .189 .108 − .129+ − .007 .130 − .005
(.114) (.099) (.078) (.226) (.133) (.154+)
Neutral mindsetc X countryb − .123 .196 − .066
Deliberative mindsetc, d X countryb − .188 .216 − .103
(− .066) (.203) (− .036)
Implemental mindsetc, d X countryb − .330 .209 − .179
(− .207) (.197) (1.112)
R2 .074* .079* .106** .115**
+ p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01
a Gender (female = 1)
b Country (UAE = 1)
c Reference group is control condition
d Reference group is neutral mindset condition, with estimates in parentheses
Higher Education
Higher Education

predominately individual-oriented conceptualization of self. The same holds true for interven-
tions aimed at promoting students’ motivation to learn (e.g., Kiemer et al. 2015; Wibrowski
et al. 2017). This paper explored whether an established intervention, i.e., inducing a deliber-
ative or implemental mindset (Gollwitzer 1990, 2012), affected college students’ motivation to
learn, and whether the mindset effects were different for US college students compared to
UAE college students.
With regard to effects of the deliberative mindset, consequences for college students’
motivation to learn were different for students from the US and the UAE. Being in a
deliberative mindset was a disadvantage for US students, thus confirming previous research
indicating detrimental effects of the deliberative mindset on goal achievement in Western
samples (Achtziger and Gollwitzer 2018). Interestingly, we did not find a similar disadvantage
of the deliberative mindset on UAE students’ motivation to learn. As such, our results might
suggest that individuals in the two samples appear to be differentially affected by the
deliberative mindset. It is possible that cultural factors might explain why the detrimental
effect of the deliberative mindset was more pronounced in the US than the UAE sample. In
individual-oriented societies, like the US, achievement is an individual endeavor, whereas in
social-oriented societies it is seen as a social endeavor (Tao and Hong 2013). Previous research
with samples from individual-oriented societies showed that contemplating goal alternatives
and expectancies of attaining (or not attaining) one’s goals leads to increased rumination about
failure (Achtziger and Gollwitzer 2018). Because achievement is an individual endeavor, not
believing in one’s abilities to master academic tasks might have thus resulted in lower
motivation to learn among US students in our study. In contrast, UAE students might have
focused on how their academic goals will positively reflect upon their family, community, and
nation. Previous work suggested an ethic of intention (valuing a person’s reasons for doing
something more than their actions) as a powerful motivation in the Arab culture (Najm 2015).
As long as one intends to benefit one’s collective, it may not be viewed negative if outcomes
are associated with mistakes (Najm 2015). Thus, how college students make meaning of
failure might be different across the two samples in our study and a possible reason for the
differential effects of the deliberative mindset.
Although the implemental mindset has been found to be effective in increasing achieve-
ment in individual-oriented cultures (Armor and Taylor 2003; Rahn et al. 2016b), in our study
we did not find support for the beneficial effect of the implemental mindset on psychological
processes. We can only speculate why the results were contradictory to the hypothesis, in
particular regarding the US sample. It is possible that the lack of findings in the present study is
due to differences in how performance was measured. Rahn et al. (2016b), for example,
measured observable behavior, i.e., students’ performance in a ring toss game. We measured
attitudes and thoughts about individuals’ learning behavior using self-reports, but did not
measure actual performance in a concrete task. Thus, it could be that beneficial carry-over
effects of the implemental mindset on subsequent tasks are more difficult to detect through
self-reports. Alternatively, it could be that unmeasured variables, such as individual character-
istics, may have accounted for the lack of findings. How one processes self-relevant informa-
tion has been suggested as a potential moderator of mindset effects (Bayer and Gollwitzer
2005). For example, it was found that low self-views are detrimental to developing self-esteem
and optimism about reaching one’s goals, both being important ingredients for the positive
effects of the implemental mindset on achievement (Bayer and Gollwitzer 2005). Although the
implemental mindset is rather action-related, it can be assumed that it might also be affected by
personal attributes which should be addressed in future research on mindset effects.
 Higher Education

A surprising finding was that the neutral mindset, in which students described their
activities on a typical college day, reduced students’ motivation to learn compared to the
control condition. This mindset was originally designed to serve as an alternative control
condition (i.e., one that controls for the time it usually takes to induce a mindset; Li et al.
2019). Some authors argued that participants in a deliberative mindset might be in a “gener-
alized state of uncertainty” similar to the state of mind experienced prior to an experiment and
that this might also be true for the neutral mindset (Gagné and Lydon 2001, p. 1151). In
speculation, the vagueness and lack of focus in thinking about one’s everyday activities at
college as well as a state of generalized uncertainty might have lowered students’ motivation to
learn in the neutral mindset condition. However, other studies using the same neutral mindset
manipulation did not find negative effects on subsequent decision making processes (Harmon-
Jones and Harmon-Jones 2002; Henderson et al. 2008; Li et al. 2019). In an exploratory
approach, we also used the neutral mindset group as the reference for the deliberative mindset
and implemental mindset groups. The pattern of results was different. Being in an implemental
mindset increased learning values and expectancies compared to being in a neutral mindset.
Taken together, while the neutral mindset is thought to serve as an alternative control
condition, the effects seem to differ across studies and when compared to the control condition.
As such, further research is needed to test the applicability of the neutral mindset as an
alternative control condition and whether possible (semantic) links between thoughts that
might have come up in the neutral mindset induction and subsequently measured constructs
might change the effects of the neutral mindset.

Limitations

In interpreting the findings, potential limitations, in particular concerning the recruitment of the
sample and the sample size per condition, need to be considered. Differences in recruitment
strategies could have resulted in the different demographic makeup of the two samples. For
example, US participants were older than UAE participants, which could also reflect differ-
ences in the year of study. Furthermore, all UAE participants were recruited from the same
public university which was not the case in the US sample. This might have resulted in a more
homogeneous sample of UAE college students compared to the US sample. Together with the
unequal sample size (the UAE sample was larger than the US sample) and the differences in
where the data was collected (at the university versus online via MTurk), these variables might
have confounded the results of the present study. In addition, mindset effects are usually small
to moderate in terms of effect sizes. The literature recommends at least 30 participants per
condition. While we generally met the sample size recommendation, in two conditions data
was available for only 28 and 29 participants in the US sample.
As a cross-cultural study, we were interested in cultural variation. Most cross-cultural
research is based on some theory or set of assumptions, often coming from a Western
perspective. Hence, there is a danger in assuming that participants across cultures use the
same frame of reference when responding to items and that interpretations of findings are
objective rather than compared to a Western “baseline.” Though the measures have been used
with populations from diverse ethnic backgrounds in the US, we could not identify a study
with Arab populations. We thus decided to follow the approach of previous studies testing
Western motivation constructs in Arab cultures (e.g., Marsh et al. 2013; Marsh et al. 2014) by
using the same questionnaire in both contexts, despite that it has not been tested in Arab
Higher Education

cultures before. To minimize potential biases, however, we consulted with researchers who had
significant experience both studying and being immersed in the UAE culture to ensure the
cultural appropriateness of the questionnaires. It is also important to note that our measure of
sociocultural background was simplistic through selecting countries and asking students to
self-identity their nationality. Thus, our ability to conclude the cultural orientation of individual
students may be limited. Therefore, our interpretation of findings of the present study remains
speculative and further cross-cultural research on motivation and volition that includes samples
from various social-cultural backgrounds is warranted.

Conclusion The present findings provided preliminary evidence that being in a certain
mindset might have different effects on college students’ motivation to learn, depending on
students’ cultural background. We argue that the deliberative mindset may be more detrimental
to cultures with an individual versus collective orientation. Results have implications for those
concerned about retention and performance in higher education, in particular, for academic
advising and First-Year College Experience courses. The number of academic advising
sessions are associated with an increase in college student retention rates (Swecker et al.
2013) and GPA (Kot 2014). Similarly, First-Year College Experience courses have been shown
to improve retention and performance (Permzadian and Credé 2016). However, the content
and quality of such sessions and seminars mediate outcomes. Reflection about one’s goals and
strategies to reach them is one of the most basic aspects.
Based on the data of the present study, it is possible that goal reflection may lead to a more
deliberative mindset. As such, future research may explore whether this aspect of academic
advising and First-Year College Experience courses is more successful within Arab versus
Western contexts. The detrimental effects of the neutral mindset, simply describing daily
activities, suggest that influencing students toward the development of academic foci is
necessary for learning motivation. Nevertheless, efforts aimed at promoting students’ engage-
ment in their own learning will need to take an ecological perspective and consider students’
cultural values as important factors that may affect implementation fidelity.

References

Abu-Hilal, M. M., & Bahri, T. M. (2000). Self-concept: the generalizability of research on the SDQ, Marsh/
Shavelson model and I/E frame of reference model to United Arab Emirates students. Social Behavior and
Personality: An International Journal, 28(4), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2000.28.4.309.
Achtziger, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2018). Motivation and volition in the course of action. In J. Heckhausen & H.
Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (4th ed.). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Armor, D. A., & Taylor, S. E. (2003). The effects of mindset on behavior: self-regulation in deliberative and
implemental frames of mind. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(1), 86–95. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167202238374.
Büttner, O. B., Wieber, F., Schulz, A. M., Bayer, U. C., Florack, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2014). Visual attention
and goal pursuit: deliberative and implemental mindsets affect breadth of attention. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 40(10), 1248–1259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214539707.
Bayer, U. C., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2005). Mindset effects on information search in self-evaluation. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 35(3), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.247.
Bembenutty, H. (2007). Self-regulation of learning and academic delay of gratification: gender and ethnic
differences among college students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(4), 586–616. https://doi.
org/10.4219/jaa-2007-553.
Bembenutty, H., & Karabenick, S. A. (1998). Academic delay of gratification. Learning and Individual
Differences, 10(4), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(99)80126-5.
 Higher Education

Bembenutty, H., & Karabenick, S. A. (2004). Inherent association between academic delay of gratification, future
time perspective, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 16(1), 35–57. https://doi.
org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000012344.34008.5c.
Bong, M. (2009). Age-related differences in achievement goal differentiation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 101, 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015945.
Brandstätter, V., & Frank, E. (2002). Effects of deliberative and implemental mindsets on persistence in goal-
directed behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10), 1366–1378. https://doi.org/10.1177
/014616702236868.
Brandstätter, V., Giesinger, L., Job, V., & Frank, E. (2015). The role of deliberative versus implemental mindsets
in time prediction and task accomplishment. Social Psychology, 46(2), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1027
/1864-9335/a000231.
Cohen, A. (2016). Commitment in the Middle East. In J. P. Meyer (Ed.), Handbook of employee commitment (pp.
418–432). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Daleure, G. M., Albon, R., Hinkston, K., Ajaif, T., & McKeown, J. (2015). Family involvement in Emirati
college student education and linkages to high and low achievement in the context of the United Arab
Emirates. Forum for International Research in Education, 1(3), 8–31 Retrieved from https://preserve.
lehigh.edu/fire/vol1/iss3/2.
Duda, J. L., & Allison, M. T. (1989). The attributional theory of achievement motivation: Cross-cultural
considerations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1016
/0147-1767(89)90034-5.
Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire.
Educational Psychologist, 40, 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4002_6.
Engin, M., & McKeown, K. (2017). Motivation of Emirati males and females to study at higher education in the
United Arab Emirates. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(5), 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1080
/0309877X.2016.1159293.
Friedman, B. A., & Mandel, R. G. (2011). Motivation predictors of college student academic performance and
retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 13(1), 1–15 doi.org/10.2190
/CS.13.1.a.
Gagné, F. M., & Lydon, J. E. (2001). Mindset and relationship illusions: The moderating effects of domain
specificity and relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1144–1155.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201279007.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mindsets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of
motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 53–92). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (2012). Mindset theory of action phases. In P. A. Lange (Ed.), Handbook of theories of social
psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 526–545). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Kinney, R. (1989). Effects of deliberative and implemental mind-sets on illusion of control.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 531–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.531.
Gupta, V., Hanges, P. J., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Cultural clusters: Methodology and findings. Journal of World
Business, 37, 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-9516(01)00070-0.
Harmon-Jones, E., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2002). Testing the action-based model of cognitive dissonance: The
effect of action-orientation on post-decisional attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6),
711–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289001.
Henderson, M. D., de Liver, Y., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2008). The effects of an implemental mindset on attitude
strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 396–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.94.3.396.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466(7302), 29–29.
https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a.
Hiemisch, A., Ehlers, A., & Westermann, R. (2002). Mindsets in social anxiety: A new look at selective
information processing. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 33(2), 103–114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7916(02)00022-8.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080
/10705519909540118.
Hügelschäfer, S., & Achtziger, A. (2014). On confident men and rational women: It’s all on your mind (set).
Journal of Economic Psychology, 41, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2013.04.001.
Keller, L., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2017). Mindsets affect risk perception and risk-taking behavior. Social
Psychology, 48, 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000304.
Higher Education

Kiemer, K., Gröschner, A., Pehmer, A.-K., & Seidel, T. (2015). Effects of a classroom discourse intervention on
teachers’ practice and students’ motivation to learn mathematics and science. Learning and Instruction, 35,
94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.003.
King, R. B., & McInerney, D. M. (2014). Culture’s consequences on student motivation: Capturing cross-cultural
universality and variability through personal investment theory. Educational Psychologist, 49, 175–198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.926813.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford
Press.
Kot, F. C. (2014). The impact of centralized advising on first-year academic performance and second-year
enrollment behavior. Research in Higher Education, 55(6), 527–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-013-
9325-4.
Li, J., Hügelschäfer, S., & Achtziger, A. (2019). A self-regulatory approach to rational decisions: The
implemental mindset optimizes economic decision making in situations requiring belief updating. Journal
of Theoretical Social Psychology, 3(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.38.
Marsh, H. W., Abduljabbar, A. S., Abu-Hilal, M. M., Morin, A. J. S., Abdelfattah, F., Leung, K., & Nagengast,
B. (2013). Factor structure, discriminant and convergent validity of TIMSS math and science motivation
measures: A comparison of Arab and Anglo-Saxon countries. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 108–
128. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029907.
Marsh, H. W., Abduljabbar, A. S., Parker, P. D., Morin, A. J., Abdelfattah, F., & Nagengast, B. (2014). The big-
fish-little-pond effect in mathematics: A cross-cultural comparison of US and Saudi Arabian TIMSS
responses. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(5), 777–804. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0022022113519858.
Martin, A. M., Yu, K., Papworth, B., Ginns, P., & Collie, R. J. (2015). Motivation and engagement in the United
States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and China: Testing a multi-dimensional framework. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 33, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914546287.
Mega, C., Ronconi, L., & De Beni, R. (2014). What makes a good student? How emotions, self-regulated
learning, and motivation contribute to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1),
121–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033546.
Najm, N. A. (2015). Arab culture dimensions in the international and Arab models. American Journal of
Business, Economics and Management, 3, 423–431.
Ng, F., F.-Y., & Wang, Q. (2019). Asian and Asian American parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of
Parenting, Volume 4: Social Conditions and Applied Parenting (3rd edition). New York, NY: Routledge.
Permzadian, V., & Credé, M. (2016). Do first-year seminars improve college grades and retention? A quantitative
review of their overall effectiveness and an examination of moderators of effectiveness. Review of
Educational Research, 86(1), 277–316. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315584955.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the
motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement,
53(3), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024.
Rahn, J., Jaudas, A., & Achtziger, A. (2016a). To plan or not to plan—Mindset effects on visual attention in
decision making. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 9(2), 109–120. https://doi.
org/10.1037/npe0000056.
Rahn, J., Jaudas, A., & Achtziger, A. (2016b). A mind for money: Dynamic mindset effects on smart risk taking.
Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 9(3–4), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1037
/npe0000060.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066
X.55.1.68.
Salili, F. (1996). Achievement motivation: A cross-cultural comparison of British and Chinese students.
Educational Psychology, 16, 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341960160304.
Sidani, Y. M., & Thornberry, J. (2010). The current Arab work ethic: Antecedents, implications, and potential
remedies. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0066-4.
Suchodoletz, A. v., Larsen, R. A. A., Gunzenhauser, C., & Fäsche, A. (2015). Reading and spelling skills in
German third graders: Examining the role of student and context characteristics. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 533–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12090.
Swecker, H. K., Fifolt, M., & Searby, L. (2013). Academic advising and first-generation college students: A
quantitative study on student retention. NACADA Journal, 33(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.12930
/NACADA-13-192.
Tao, V. K., & Hong, Y.-y. (2013). When academic achievement is an obligation. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 45, 110–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113490072.
 Higher Education

Taylor, S. E., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1995). Effects of mindset on positive illusions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 69(2), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.213.
Trommsdorff, G. (2009). Culture and development of self-regulation. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 3(5), 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00209.x.
Urdan, T., & Buchmann, K. (2018). Examining the academic motivation of a diverse student population: A
consideration of methodology. Educational Psychologist, 53, 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1080
/00461520.2018.1440234.
Usher, E. L. (2018). Acknowledging the whiteness of motivation research: Seeking cultural relevance.
Educational Psychologist, 53, 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1442220.
Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012). Structural equation modeling: Applications using Mplus. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Wibrowski, C. R., Matthews, W. K., & Kitsantas, A. (2017). The role of a skills learning support program on
first-generation college students’ self-regulation, motivation, and academic achievement: A longitudinal
study. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, 19(3), 317–332. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1521025116629152.
Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., & Eccles, J. S. (2004). Expectancy value theory in cross-cultural perspective. In D.
McInerney & S. van Etten (Eds.), Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning (pp.
165–198). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.
Yin, H. (2018). What motivates Chinese undergraduates to engage in learning? Insights from a psychological
approach to student engagement research. Higher Education. Online first. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-
018-0239-0.
You, J. W. (2018). Testing the three-way interaction effect of academic stress, academic self-efficacy, and task
value on persistence in learning among Korean college students. Higher Education. Online first. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10734-018-0255-0.
Zaharna, R. S. (1995). Understanding cultural preferences of Arab communication patterns. Public Relations
Review, 21, 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/0363-8111(95)90024-1.
Zusho, A., & Clayton, K. (2011). Culturalizing achievement goal theory and research. Educational Psychologist,
46, 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.614526.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Affiliations

Antje von Suchodoletz 1 & Johanna Rahn 2 & Iryna Nadyukova 1 & Lydia Barza 3 & Anja
Achtziger 2

Johanna Rahn
j.rahn@iwm-tuebingen.de

Iryna Nadyukova
in380@nyu.edu

Lydia Barza
lydiabarza@hotmail.com

Anja Achtziger
1
anja.achtziger@zu.de
New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, UAE
2
Zeppelin University Friedrichshafen, Friedrichshafen, Germany
3
Zayed University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, UAE