Race Comparisons on Need for Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Alternative to Graham’s Narrative Review

Author:

Cooper Harris1,Dorr Nancy1

Affiliation:

1. University of Missouri–Columbia

Abstract

A box score review conducted by Graham (1994) concluded that no difference existed between Blacks and Whites on measures of need for achievement. A meta-analysis reported in this article using the same research base revealed reliable and complex race differences. Overall, Whites scored higher than Blacks on measures of need for achievement, but the race difference all but disappeared in studies conducted after 1970. As a possible explanation, the meta-analysis revealed that since 1970 samples of participants from various socioeconomic levels have been preferred and that such samples showed differences between races of only half the size of those shown for samples of participants of strictly lower socioeconomic status. The method of assessment and the age and education of participants also influenced outcomes of race comparisons. Finally, Graham concluded that the research showed a consistent pattern of more positive self-concept of ability among Blacks than Whites. The meta-analysis also found this effect but revealed it to be smaller (though nonsignificantly so) than the difference in need for achievement rejected by the box score. Thus, the meta-analysis found that effects are no larger in an area where Graham concluded they existed than in an area where she concluded they did not.

Publisher

American Educational Research Association (AERA)

Subject

Education

Cited by 14 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Engagement as an Individual Trait and Its Relationship to Achievement;Advancing Responsible Adolescent Development;2013

2. Replication in Prevention Science;Prevention Science;2011-05-04

3. VARIATIES IN PERSOONLIJKHEID;Kleine ontwikkelingspsychologie II;2009

4. Further Evidence of an Engagement–Achievement Paradox Among U.S. High School Students;Journal of Youth and Adolescence;2007-11-06

5. Motivational Interventions That Work: Themes and Remaining Issues;Educational Psychologist;2007-11-02

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3