Search

Cognitive theories of emotion assert that emotional reactions to events depend on the manner in which events are interpreted and appraised. From this perspective, the same outcome can produce different emotions. For example, a score of 85% on a test can evoke positive feelings if it is considered a success or negative feelings if it is considered a failure. Among the various appraisal dimensions that have been identified, causal attributions are thought to play a particularly influential role in shaping emotional reactions to various events. For example, success can evoke pride if it is attributed to high ability, gratitude if it is attributed to help from others, relief if it is attributed to a stroke of good fortune, or guilt if it is attained fraudulently or at the expense of others. These cognitive-affective linkages are thought to be universal. In this paper, we report two studies that tested the cross-cultural generality of some of these assumptions. In Study 1, participants from the People's Republic of China were led to succeed or fail on an (alleged) test of their intelligence and creativity. Consistent with previous findings with Western samples, attributions to ability predicted participants' emotional reactions to their test performance, with high ability attributions linked to greater pride following success. In Study 2, we extended these findings with American and Chinese participants, using a different experimental manipulation of success and failure, and a measure of attributions to effort. For both cultural groups, attributions to ability (but not attributions to effort) predicted greater emotional reactions to success. We conclude that attribution-emotion linkages have cross-cultural validity, and that pride is maximized when success is attributed to high ability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One hundred and ninety-three Hong Kong parents (mean age 42.2 years) were given a structured interview / questionnaire concerning their own and their children's self-estimated overall and multiple intelligence. Previous research suggested that males tend to give higher overall "g" estimates to their children and themselves than do females, as well as higher scores on mathematical and spatial intelligence (Furnham, 2001). Further, studies in the West suggest that parents think their children are significantly brighter than they are and that their sons are brighter than their daughters. Estimates were lower than those found in Western populations but, even so, males rated their own mathematical and spatial intelligence higher than did females. Hong Kong Chinese parents did not think their sons were brighter than their daughters. The seven multiple intelligences factored into three clear factors for self and children, and regressions indicated that it was "academic" intelligence (verbal, mathematical, spatial) that was most "g" loaded. The child's age and the self-rated overall IQ of both the parents were the best predictors of the child's overall estimated IQ. Less than a third of the parents had taken an IQ test or believed they measured IQ very well. Those who were more likely to be better educated, had taken an IQ test, and believed intelligence was inherited were more likely to award themselves higher overall IQ scores. Results are compared with the British studies in the same area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study investigated the concepts of intelligence of two groups of Hong Kong Chinese university students. They differed in the secondary schools from which they graduated, one followed the Chinese system and the other the English system. These two groups were otherwise similar in age, academic achievement, and racial background. Subjects were asked to rate items selected from four popular intelligence tests in terms of their relevance to measuring intelligence and perceived difficulty. The relevance ratings were taken as reflections of the group's concept of intelligence. Factor analysis revealed two major factors and several minor factors underlying the relevance ratings of the two groups. The major ones were Non-verbal and Verbal reasoning skills, and the minor ones were Social, Numerical, and Retrieval skills. The Non-verbal reasoning skill was rated equally relevant by the two groups of subjects and was considered as the most relevant skill to measuring intelligence. The Verbal reasoning and Social skills were next, followed by the Numerical skill with the Retrieval skill being the least relevant. The Chinese-school group tended to rate the Verbal reasoning skill to be less relevant than did the English-school group. These findings were attributed to the mental effort involved in solving each type of task and to the differences in school instruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]