1

Assessment Cover Sheet (to be downloaded and completed by the student)

Course Diploma of Higher Education in Psychology

Module code and
PSY006A – Quantitative Research Method
Module name

Batch Code DHPF18

Title of Assignment Nationality and Leadership Self-Efficacy

Name of Tutor Mr. Naren Selvaratnam

Word count 2981

Individual assignment Group assignment

Student Code Student Codes

DHPF18009

Markers’ Comments
Strengths/Summary:
 2

Work could be improved by:

Mark for assignment ..............................%

By submitting this cover page along with my assessment:

I understand this work will not be marked without an electronic submission.

I certify that all the material in this paper which is not my own work has been identified and
acknowledged and that no material is included for which a degree has been previously conferred
upon me.
For office use only:
 3

A comparison of difference in Leadership Self-Efficacy across different nationalities

Abstract:

Leadership Self-Efficacy has become one major area of study with the increase in the

Asian descent students moving to foreign countries for higher studies. Since leadership is one

essential part of university life and with past researches showing Asian students to have a

reported lower Leadership Self-Efficacy, this present study aims at finding whether cross-

cultural effect influences a person’s leadership skills and it also aims at finding out whether there

is an actual relationship that exists between an individual’s General Self-Efficacy and Leadership

Self-Efficacy. A random sample of 120 students who were domestic Americans and Asian

descents from India, China, Japan, Vietnam, and Pakistan were recruited which includes both

male and female participants. The test results obtained supports both the hypothesis tested and

emphasizes on the importance of developing unique strategies to develop leadership skills among

Asian-American students.

Introduction:

Self-efficacy is considered a main construct that determines level of success achieved in

academic life, career construct, work performance, and a person’s ability to handle and face any

challenges and has been a subject of research since Bandura’s introduction of the concept over 4

decades ago and has been defined as the strong belief that one can successfully accomplish the

behaviour that is required to bring out any desired outcome (Bandura 1977). Leadership Self-

efficacy is a construct that has been derived from Self-efficacy. According to Chemers et al.

(2000), leadership self-efficacy or LSE in particular is defined as a leader’s confidence judgment

in his or her potential to effectively carryout the behaviours that constitute the leadership role
 4

and is considered the main construct that affects how often a person comes forward to lead. A

new leadership approach is proposed based on Bandura’s social cognitive theory which posits

LSE as the key cognitive variable regulating leader functioning.

Leadership self-efficacy is a concept that is affected by environmental changes which

either supports or constrains an individual’s potential to lead (Bandura 1977).With the drastic

development in the educational field, it is evident that students from Asian countries seeking

higher education in United States comprise a considerable amount of their student population

and are therefore considered a critical component of the American colleges. Though there is an

increase in the research on international students, only a few have focused on the impact of

cross-cultural variances in self efficacy of leadership among international students in comparison

to the local American students and there is no evidence that suggests the use of student

leadership theory in explaining academic success of international students (Nguyen 2015), which

makes this present study to focus on cross-cultural differences of student related to their LSE.

There is no rich literature review available that talks about the effect of nationality of

international students on leadership self-efficacy. Most of the past studies have failed to

distinguish domestic students from international students in understanding leadership.

International students, when compared to domestic students are prone to cultural shock,

pedagogical changes which adds to their already stressing situation of adapting to a new

environment and also the differences they have in the ability to transit into college life

(Kaczmarek et al. 1994). One study from past undertaken by Nguyen (2016) has focused on the

leadership confidence exhibited by International students studying abroad in comparison to the

domestic students. The results indicates that Asian students exhibit a lower LSE. This study had

students from United States, Mexico, Canada, and West Indies and has employed data from the
 5

2012 Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership (MSL), which was developed with the focus of

examining and understanding college student leadership development and how the college

environment plays a role in leadership outcomes. The findings from this study suggests that

international students have lesser exposure of being leaders or had lesser LSE when compared to

the domestic American students. However, one main shortcoming of this study is that MSL

survey that was developed was something designed for the domestic students, which has led to

misinterpretation of some questions by international students. For example, there are questions

regarding pre-college experiences that was included in the MSL, which asks about the students

experience in taking part in certain high school activities which might not be the case in

international students. Another limitation is that this study of Nguyen (2016) has students who

were recruited from Mexico, Canada, and West Indies and hence cannot be generalized to other

international students from Asian countries.

Kodama and Dugan (2013) through their research has studied the statistically significant

difference that race could bring about in leadership self-efficacy among college students

employing Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership or MSL data collection recruiting students

who were African American/black, white, Asian Pacific American, Latino, and multiracial

students, with the results indicating that African/American students having highest score on LSE

and the Asian Pacific American students demonstrated the lowest LSE scores, indicating the

need for educational equity by using new interventions that would target the unique leadership

development necessities of students with different racial backgrounds.

Though all these existing literatures have focused somewhat on LSE, they have failed to

focus on nationality in particular, and also have not focused on studying the LSE of Asian
 6

American students, who often are identified as students who do not consider themselves as

leaders. Thus, the primary research questions here are:

1. Does the nationality of a student impact the leadership self-efficacy they exhibit during

college life?

2. Does Asian American students exhibit a lower leadership self-efficacy when compared to

domestic students?

3. Is there a relationship between a student’s general self-efficacy and leadership self-

efficacy?

With the research questions above, this study involves the following 2 hypotheses:

H1: There is a statistically significant difference in the leadership self-efficacy of an individual

based on his/her nationality.

H2: There is a statistically significant positive relationship between a student’s General self-

efficacy and Leadership self-efficacy.

Methodology:

Design:

This study comprises of 2 hypothesis and therefore the study design employed for this

quantitative study are a Kruskal Wallis One-way ANOVA and a Spearman’s Rho correlation.

The first hypothesis aims at testing the difference in LSE based on nationality, and the dependent

variable here is the Leadership Self-efficacy and the independent variable is the nationality of

students. For the second hypothesis which aims at finding a positive correlation between General
 7

Self-efficacy and Leadership self-efficacy, since there is no restriction as to which should be a

dependent or independent variable, General self-efficacy or GSE is chosen as independent

variable and LSE is chosen as dependent variable randomly.

Participants:

The participants recruited were undergraduate students from state universities across the

Midwest in the United States using random sampling technique. This Midwest university

students comprised of both domestic American students (n= 32) as well as Asian students who

has gone to USA for higher studies including Indian (n= 23), Chinese (25), Japanese (20),

Vietnamese (15) and Pakistani (5). The total sample comprised of 120 students with 78 male

participants and 42 female participants with their years of academic exposure ranging from 1 to 4

years.

Tools:

For this research design two questionnaires were used for data collection, one is the

Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale questionnaire and the second one is Leadership Self-Efficacy

questionnaire. The Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale questionnaire is a unidimensional and

universal construct which consists of 10 items and is adapted in 28 languages and meets the

criteria needed to be used in multicultural studies and domain-specific situations (Selvaratnam et

al. 2018). The response options available for this questionnaire consists of a 4-point Likert scale

for each item. Correspondingly, sum scores ranged from 10 to 40. Higher scores indicate higher

GSE and lower scores indicate lower GSE. This scale has been used in numerous researches and

has yielded an internal consistency between alpha = 0.75 and 0.91. The second questionnaire

employed in the study is LSE questionnaire, which is a novel questionnaire and consists of 5
 8

items and is said to have an internal consistency reliability alpha value of 0.79. The scores in this

scale ranges from 10 to 40, with 10 indicating low LSE and 40 indicating higher LSE. To

validate the novel scale, a correlation analysis was done between the highly validated GSE and

the novel LSE scale measurements and the strong positive correlation coefficient proven the

empirical validity of the novel Leadership Self-Efficacy questionnaire.

Data Analysis:

Once data was collected it was fed into SPSS IBM and descriptive and inferential

statistical analysis were carried out. Descriptive statistics were obtained for both LSE and GSE

scores including mean comparisons, median, and standard deviation based on nationality. For

inferential statistics, a Pearson correlation was thought to be run for correlational analysis

between GSE and the novel LSE scores to provide validity to the novel Leadership Self-efficacy

scale, but due to the nonlinearity exhibited in scatter plots between both LSE and GSE scores,

and Shapiro Wilk’s test showing a significant alpha value, a non-parametric Spearman Rho was

conducted. To test the hypothesis 1 which aims at showing that there is a statistically significant

difference in LSE based on nationality, a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted due

to the violation of normality assumption exhibited by Shapiro - Wilk in One-Way between

groups ANOVA.

Data collection, ethics and procedure:

Once the participants were recruited, next the participants were given the participation

information sheet to keep them informed of the purpose of the study. Following that, a consent

form was provided to them to get the approval of them to take part in the study and also to keep

them informed of their independence in withdrawing from the study at any point in time.
 9

Protection of participant information was considered as the main ethical consideration for the

study and participants were informed that no personal information could be disclosed to any

other entities for any reason and the Mid west universities gave ethical clearance . Participants

were given a demographic sheet to get only the basic details like gender of the student, number

of years of academic exposure, and were also given the Leadership Self-Efficacy questionnaire

and Generalized Self-Efficacy questionnaire to answer, and were informed of the anonymity as

well as the confidentiality of their answers provided. Participants were given a time period of 5

hours to complete and handover the questionnaires. Once the participants has handed over the

completed questionnaires they were debriefed as to what the researches are intending to do with

the questionnaires. This was done to make sure that no student would go through any physical,

mental-stress or discomfort of any sort. Once the data was collected, it was fed into the IBM

SPSS software to proceed with studying the 2 main hypothesis involved in this study along with

some descriptive and inferential statistics.

Results:

From the data input into SPSS it was recorded that data was collected from 120

undergraduate students. Out of the 120 participants, 65% were males (N=78) and 35% were

females (N=42) participants. It was also found that out of the 120 participants involved, 26.7%

were American (N=32), 20.8% Chinese (N=25), 19.2% Indian (N=23), 16.7% Japanese (N=20),

4.2% Pakistani (N=5), and 12.5% Vietnamese (N=15). The academic exposure of these students

was also recorded with 11.7% of students have 4 years exposure (n=14), 13.3% have 3 years of

exposure (n=16), 22.5% have 2 years of exposure (n=27), and 52.5% have 1 year exposure

(n=63).
 10

Tables below (Table 1.0 and Table 1.1) indicate a descriptive analysis of the LSE and GSE

scores including comparison of means for these 2 variables based on nationality of the students.

Leadership Self-Efficacy Descriptive

Nationality N Mean Median Std. Deviation

American 32 34.44 35.00 5.382

Chinese 25 33.04 34.00 4.641

Indian 23 34.96 38.00 6.385

Japanese 20 29.85 31.50 7.956

Pakistani 5 38.20 38.00 2.049

Vietnamese 15 33.33 36.00 5.948

Total 120 33.50 35.41 6.140

(Table 1.0)

It is evident from the above table that Pakistani students (N=5, SD = 2.049) has the highest mean

score 34.44 for LSE, while Japanese (N=20, SD = 7.956) have exhibited the lowest mean score

of 29.85 for LSE.

Generalized Self-Efficacy Descriptive

Nationality N Mean Median Std. Deviation

American 32 34.44 37.00 5.940

Chinese 25 32.16 33.00 5.429

Indian 23 34.43 37.00 6.680

Japanese 20 30.30 30.50 7.774

Pakistani 5 38.40 40.00 2.608

Vietnamese 15 31.27 34.00 5.444

Total 120 33.04 35.25 6.378

 11

(Table 1.1)

It is evident from the above table that for GSE also Pakistani students (N=5, SD = 2.608) has the

highest mean score 38.40 while Japanese (N=20, SD = 7.774) have exhibited the lowest mean

score of 30.30.

Table 2.0 below indicates the Spearman’s Rho Correlation Matrix for Leadership Self-

Efficacy and General Self-Efficacy.

Measure General Self-Efficacy

Leadership Self-Efficacy .847

Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 120

**Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

(Table 2.0)

Due to the violation of assumption of normality and linearity of the SLE and GSE scores,

a non-parametric Spearman Rho was performed. Spearman’s Rho indicated the presence of a

strong positive correlation between LSE and GSE scores, rs = .847, p < 0.05, two tailed, N=120.

This correlational study confirmed the hypothesis 2, stating that there is a statistically significant

positive correlation that exists between LSE and GSE, supporting the research team’s LSE novel

scale thus providing empirical validity to this questionnaire.

 12

Hypothesis 1 was tested using Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA and the results are as

shown below.

Kruskal Wallis One-Way ANOVA for Leadership Self Efficacy and Nationality

Leadership SE

Chi-Square 11.745
df 5
Asymp. Sig. .038

(Table 3.0)

(Table 3.1)

One-Way Between Groups ANOVA was planned to be run to investigate the impact that

nationality had on LSE. Inspection of the Skeweness, Kurtosis and Shapiro-Wilk statistics

indicated violation of normality and also the Leven’s test was non-significant, F (5,114) = 3.890,

p = 0.003, and therefore a Kruskal Wallis ANOVA was run.

 13

A Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA indicated that there were statistically significant difference in

LSE based on nationalities between Americans (Mean rank= 64.00), Chinese (Mean rank =

53.02), Indian (Mean rank = 72.04), Japanese (Mean rank = 45.03), Vietnamese (Mean rank =

89.80), and Pakistani (Mean rank = 58.67), H = 11.745, df = 5, N= 120, p =0.038. Therefore

based on these inferential, the hypothesis 1 was accepted.

Discussion:

This study was conducted with the aim of testing two hypothesis, one was to gain

empirical validity to the novel LSE scale by looking for a strong positive correlation with the

already universalized GSE scale so that it could be replicated in future studies. The Spearman

Rho results shows the acceptance of the hypothesis showing a strong positive correlation

between the 2 scales. The second hypothesis was aimed at showing that there is a statistically

significant difference in LSE based on nationality and the Kruskal Wallis test results with an

alpha value (p=038) lesser than 0.05 confirms the acceptance of this hypothesis showing that

nationality plays an important role in determining the leadership skills exhibited by

undergraduate students. Previous research conducted by Nguyen (2016) also supports the

existence of cross-cultural difference in the leadership self-efficacy among undergraduate

students with domestic students displaying higher LSE compared to international students. The

present study also agrees with the existence of cross-cultural influence on leadership experience

with domestic students exhibiting a higher mean rank for LSE compared to most of the other

Asian countries as shown in Table 3.1. Pakistani students has exhibited highest mean rank of

89.80, but this has resulted from participation of only 5 students. This cross-cultural impact on

LSE in non-American students is also explained through Bandura’s self-efficacy theory.

 14

Therefore both these studies emphasize on the importance of utilizing separate strategies that

focuses on developing Leadership of Asian American students also.

Moreover, this study conducted has its limitations such as the number of participants

(N=120) chosen for the study is very low and hence its generalizability to the general population

is low. Also selection of only Asian students make this research non-generalizable to other

nationality students. Another main shortcoming is the use of novel LSE scale. Though the scale

has an internal consistency of 0.79, this was designed for this particular Asian students and hence

this questionnaire cannot be replicated for non-Asian students. Also, there are other demographic

variables like age which could have also affected the test results and in this study age was not

considered when doing random sampling of students. Also, there is no equal number of students

representing each nationality and this has greatly affected the results as explained by mean ranks

obtained. Therefore, a future study could be conducted in a way to have a universally accepted

LSE scale, with equal number of participants representing each nationality and to include a large

number of participants so that this research design could be replicated.

It could be concluded that this research design was conducted in a rightful manner

considering all the research ethics, with 120 participants representing American and Asian

descent ranging from 1 to 4 years of academic exposure. The descriptive and inferential statistics

were obtained through IBM SPSS software and the results reported agreed with both hypothesis

that were tested, with the first hypothesis showing a strong positive correlation between novel

LSE scale and universal GSE scale variables giving an empirical validity to the researchers novel

scale designed. The second test showed that there is a statistically significant difference in the

LSE based on nationality and American students when compared to most of the Asian nationality

students had higher LSE, validating the second hypothesis.

 15

References:

1. Bandura, A. (1977) ‘Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.’

Psychological Review [online] 84(2), 191–215. Available from <doi:10.1037/0033-

295x.84.2.191> [September 29, 2019]

2. Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B., and May, S. T. (2000) ‘Dispositional Affect and

Leadership Effectiveness: A Comparison of Self-Esteem, Optimism, and Efficacy.’

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin [online] 26(3), 267–277. Available from

<doi:10.1177/0146167200265001> [September 28, 2019]

3. Nguyen, D, H, K. (2015) ‘International Student Self-Efficacy of Leadership: A Within-

Group Analysis’ (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses database. (Accession No. 3737394) [September 26, 2019]

4. Nguyen, D, H, K. (2016) ‘Student Success Through Leadership Self-Efficacy: A

Comparison of International and Domestic Students.’ Journal of International Students

[online] 6(4), 829-842. Available from <https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1125559.pdf>

[September 30, 2019]

5. Kaczmarek, P. G., Matlock, G., Merta, R., Ames, M. H., and Ross, M. (1994) ‘An

assessment of international college student adjustment.’ International Journal for the

Advancement of Counselling [online] 17(4), 241–247. Available from

<doi:10.1007/bf01407740> [September 29, 2019]

 16

6. Kodama, C. M., and Dugan, J. P. (2013) ‘Leveraging Leadership Efficacy for College

Students: Disaggregating Data to Examine Unique Predictors by Race.’ Equity &

Excellence in Education [online] 46(2), 184–201. Available from

<doi:10.1080/10665684.2013.780646> [September 27, 2019]