Mental motivation, intrinsic motivation and their relationship with emotional support sources among gifted and non-gifted Jordanian adolescents

Abstract

Emotional support has emerged in contemporary research as a significant component to establishing and maintaining close relationships, and is thought to play a critical role in children’s development. Emotional support has been defined in a number of ways, but the various definitions contain some commonalities. Emotional support refers to expressions of concern and care for another person, especially in times of distress and difficulty. In doing so, someone providing emotional support will offer sympathy, express concern, and display compassion and love for another. As such, emotional support: addresses matters residing at the core of our being; our sense of self, the things we aspire to, our hopes, our fears, and our deepest feelings. Being emotionally supportive may involve helping someone who is distressed by “listening to, empathizing with, legitimizing, and actively exploring their feelings”. Expressions of emotional support aim to relieve a person’s distress, and offer sympathy and nurturance. In particular, because stress and emotional hurt often stem from the invalidation of self, either directly (e.g., rejection by a valued other) or indirectly (e.g., failing at something connected to one’s self-concept), expressions of encouragement, compassion, compliment, appreciation, reassurance, and respect—often regarded as appraisal, ego, or esteem support—can be conceptualized as forms of emotional support.

Keywords:

• creativity
• education
• motivation
• interpersonal relations mental motivation
• intrinsic motivation
• emotional support sources
• gifted and non-gifted students
• Jordan

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Gifted and non-gifted tenth grade students in Jordan were asked to complete measures of emotional support, intrinsic motivation, and mental motivation. Each of these concepts have been shown to be important for development and learning, but little is known about them with regard to gifted Jordanian students. Results from our study show that emotional support is related to intrinsic motivation and mental motivation. The highest levels of emotional support, intrinsic motivation and mental motivation are found in gifted females.

Emotional support has emerged in contemporary research as a significant component to establishing and maintaining close relationships (Burleson, 2003a), and is thought to play a critical role in children’s development (Brock & Curby, 2014). Emotional support has been defined in a number of ways, but the various definitions contain some commonalities. Emotional support refers to expressions of concern and care for another person, especially in times of distress and difficulty. In doing so, someone providing emotional support will offer sympathy, express concern, and display compassion and love for another (Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, & Reiss, 1988; Cohen & Willis, 1985; Cutrona & Russell, 1990). As such, emotional support: addresses matters residing at the core of our being; our sense of self, the things we aspire to, our hopes, our fears, and our deepest feelings (Burleson, 2003a, p. 2).

Being emotionally supportive may involve helping someone who is distressed by “listening to, empathizing with, legitimizing, and actively exploring their feelings” (Burleson, 2003b). Expressions of emotional support aim to relieve a person’s distress, and offer sympathy and nurturance (Hill, 1987). In particular, because stress and emotional hurt often stem from the invalidation of self, either directly (e.g., rejection by a valued other) or indirectly (e.g., failing at something connected to one’s self-concept), expressions of encouragement, compassion, compliment, appreciation, reassurance, and respect—often regarded as appraisal, ego, or esteem support—can be conceptualized as forms of emotional support (Burleson, 2003b, p. 552).

For this reason, emotional support is critical to the establishment of close personal relationships (Brant, 2003; Cunningham & Barabee, 2000). As children develop, they engage in reciprocal interactions with significant others, and they begin to predict the behaviours of those others. They then may modify their emotions in anticipation of the predicted behaviours. Consequently, the quality of the relationship that is established in this mechanism can enhance or hinder a child’s development (Brock & Curby, 2014). For example, children who are close to their parents and teachers are more academically and socially competent, display fewer behaviour problems, and show better engagement and adjustment in school (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999). When classrooms are emotionally supportive children display fewer behaviour problems (McCormick, Cappella, O’Connor, & McClowry, 2013; Merritt, Wanless, Rimm-Kaufam, & Cameron, 2012). These results are accentuated if the emotional support is consistent. Children of teachers who are consistently emotionally supportive display higher social competence and exhibit fewer behaviour problems (Brock & Curby, 2014, 2016).

Some studies have suggested emotional support is associated with subjective well-being (Almquist, Östberg, Rostila, Edling, & Rydgren, 2014; Shakespeare-Finch & Obst, 2011; Siedlecki, Salthouse, Oishi, & Jeswani, 2014) and better quality of health (Reblin & Uchino, 2008) while low emotional support is associated with poor health outcomes (Strine, Chapman, Balluz, & Mokdad, 2008). Family emotional support has been found to be associated with a greater likelihood of engaging in health-promoting behaviours (Maldonado & Vaughn, 2013).

More importantly, emotional support from parents during early phases of development is important, and a positive, warm and supportive relationship with parents predicts social-emotional adjustment during childhood and early adolescence (Laursen & Collins, 2009). Children and adolescents who report their parents as being sensitive and supportive tend to feel better about themselves and have positive friendships (Booth-Laforce et al., 2006; Laible, Carlo, & Raffaelli, 2000). As such, emotional support may provide the foundation for developing resilience. The support provided through the establishment of close relationships may help individuals cope more effectively with difficulties, face problems and maintain a positive outlook (Burleson, 1994; Stroebe & Stroebe, 1996).

Although expressions of concern, compassion and empathy are important forms of emotional support that support healthy development, equally significant is the fulfillment of the basic needs of autonomy, competence and belonging, as outlined in self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to self-determination theory, individuals have an innate tendency for growth if the basic needs of autonomy, competence and belonging are fulfilled. If these needs are thwarted, individuals are at risk of developing defensive mechanisms (Ryan, Deci, & Vansteenkiste, 2016; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). For example, thwarting the development of these psychological needs has been linked to suicide ideation (Britton, Van Orden, Hirsch, & Williams, 2014; Bureau, Mageau, Vallerand, Rousseau, & Otis, 2012), bulimic tendencies (Pelletier & Dion, 2007; Verstuyf, Vansteenkiste, & Soenens, 2012) and borderline personality disorders (Ryan, 2005).

More importantly, the fulfillment of these basic needs is the cornerstone of intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Intrinsic motivation refers to the innate and inherent tendencies for people to seek challenges, to explore and play by participating in activities that are engaging (Ryan & Deci, 2000). That is, to be intrinsicaly motivated is to do something for the enjoyment and satisfaction of doing it (Seifert & Hedderson, 2010), and being intrinsically motivated plays a critical role in development, learning, and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1995; Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991; Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997). Intrinsic motivation ensues from contexts that nurture curiosity, exploration, challenge, mastery, and interest, and it is in this context that development occurs (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 1989, 1999; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1995; Grolnick et al., 1997; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Yet it is also the case that curiosity, exploration and mastery, that is learning for its own sake, is a characteristic of critical thinking. Although critical thinking is valued as an important goal of education, possessing the necessary skills to think critically is considered insufficient to be a good critical thinker (Facione, Giancarlo, Facione, & Gainen, 1995). In addition to the requisite cognitive skills, it is recognized that students must also possess the disposition to utilize those skills. Possessing a critical disposition refers to having the appropriate attitudes, values and inclinations towards critical thinking (Facione et al., 1995; Giancarlo, Blohm, & Urdan, 2004), and is considered an essential component of critical thinking. Giancarlo et al. (2004) have termed this disposition as mental motivation, and have characterized it as being comprised of four elements: learning orientation, creative problem-solving, mental focus, and cognitive integrity. Learning orientation refers to possessing a mastery or learning goal orientation which is defined as a desire to acquire new skills and knowledge. The creative problem-solving component describes the tendencies to be innovative, imaginative, and novel in thinking about problems. Mental focus characterizes one’s ability to be task-focussed, organized, systematic and clear-headed when solving problems. Cognitive integrity refers to the degree to which one considers different points of view for the sake of pursuing truth, and being fair-minded by valuing alternative viewpoints. In a series of studies with secondary school students, Giancarlo et al. (2004) found these four components of mental motivation to be correlated with SAT and PSAT scores, grade point average, self-efficacy, self-regulation and mastery goal orientation.

Emotional support, intrinsic motivation and mental motivation may be particularly important for gifted students and their development. Gifted children often have difficulty relating to others, especially if they are highly gifted (Blackett & Webb, 2011). They may be perceived as impatient with others, ask embarassing questions, critical or intolerant towards others, and sensitive to the criticism by others (Blackett & Webb, 2011). Often, such children see themselves as different from their peers, and being labeled as gifted results in “limited social benefits,” often having to choose between academic excellence or social acceptance. Consequently, they may strive to hide their abilities, to the point of dropping out of school. Experiences of social isolation coupled with sensitivity and perfectionistic tendecies may lead gifted students to be at risk of problem behaviours (Blaas, 2014). Consequently, emotional support is important for gifted children and research suggests that gifted children will be better adjusted when placed in environments which provide acceptance and support (Eddles-Hirst, Vialle, McCormick, & Rogers, 2012).

Although gifted children may display behaviours which create tendencies for social isolation, they also display behaviours which are intellectually driven. Gifted children have been described as being creative and innovative, capable of intense concentration, love of truth, able to solve problems, inquisitive and curious (e.g., Blackett & Webb, 2011). For example, Henderson, Gold, and McCord (1982) found that gifted children reported higher levels of curiosity than non-gifted children, and the differences increased as grade-level increased. Curiosity is an important characteristic of intellectual giftedness, and the superior intellectual skills possessed by gifted children allows them to explore and create (Perleth & Wilde, 2009).

Creative individuals are both energized by and strive for greater self-determination (Sheldon, 1995). Gifted students tend to have higher levels of intrinsic motivation than their non-gifted counterparts (Vallerand, Gagne, Senecal, & Pelletier, 1994) and tend to be more learning goal oriented than their non-gifted peers (Kahyaoglu, 2013). Results of a meta-analysis indicated that gifted students had much higher perceived academic competence than their non-gifted peers (Lister & Roberts, 2011). Chessor (2013), however, found that gifted students in a homogeneous setting had lower learning goal orientations than non-gifted students.

Few studies have examined emotional support, intrinsic motivation and mental motivation in Arabic cultures. One notable exception is a study of intrinsic motivation in gifted Jordanian students by Al-Dhaimit and Kreishan (2016). Further, although a number of studies have explored gender differences in emotional support, with mixed findings (Bokhorst, Sumter, & Westenberg, 2010; Côté, Bouffard, & Vezeau, 2014; Helsen, Vollebergh, & Meeus, 2000; Inguglia, Ingolgia, & Lo Coco, 2013; Malecki & Demaray, 2002), none have done so with Arabic populations. As a consequence, the present study aims to further our understanding of emotional support, intrinsic motivation and mental motivation in Arabic countries by addressing three research questions:

1. Are there a significant correlations between emotional support, mental motivation, and intrinsic motivation among gifted and non-gifted Jordanian students?

2. Are there any significant differences in students’ emotional support, intrinsic motivation, and mental motivation, respectively in relation to students’ gender and giftedness?

3. Are there any significant mean differences in the intrinsic motivation and mental motivation, respectively in relation to the source of emotional support?

1. Method

1.1. Participants

The participants in this study were recruited from two schools in Amman, Jordan. Ninety-one (42 male and 49 female) tenth grade students were selected from a secondary school for gifted children; this represents 94% of the total population of the school. The sample of non-gifted children consisted of students enrolled in the regular program of government schools in Amman. Eight school districts containing 37 schools for boys and 40 schools for girls are found in Amman. From these, two boys’ schools and two girls’ schools were selected to participate. This resulted in a sample size of 140 students of which 68 were male and 72 were female. Prior to conducting the study, 20 gifted and 20 non-gifted students were selected to participate in a pilot study to check the validity and reliability of the instruments used.

1.2. Measures

1.2.1. Mental motivation

To measure disposition for critical thinking, participants completed the California Measure of Mental Motivation—CM3 (Giancarlo & Facione, 2000). This version of the CM3 consisted of 72 items in Likert format with four responses for each item (strongly disagree to strongly agree). The inventory consisted of four scales: Learning Orientation, Creative Problem Solving, Mental Focus, and Cognitive Integrity. Scale scores were computed by summing the individual item scores (ranging from 1 to 4); the total score of the CM3 was calculated by adding the item scores across all the items. In a series of three studies, Giancarlo et al. (2004) showed the CM3 to have acceptable psychometric characteristics (Giancarlo et al., 2004). Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale in the three studies ranged between (0.89–0.91), and between (0.73–0.87) for the various sub-scales.

For this study, we used an Arabic version of the CM3 (Maree’ & Nofel, 2008) which has demonstrated acceptable psychometric characteristics. The internal consistency coefficient for total scale was 0.88, and ranged between 0.76–0.91 for each of the subscales. A factor analysis yielded four factors similar to the English version of the CM3: Learning Orientation, Creative Problem Solving, Mental Focus, and Cognitive Integrity (Maree’ & Nofel, 2008).

1.2.2. Emotional support

In the present study, sources of emotional support was assessed using a 16 item, five point Likert scale (Hisada, Senda, & Minoguchi, 1989). This scale assesses an individual’s perception of receiving emotional support (e.g., compassion or encouragement) from those to whom they feel close. Uchida, Kitayama, Mesquita, Reyes, and Morling (2008) reported internal consistency coeffecients of 0.91, .92 and .91 for samples of American, Filipino and Japanese participants respectively. For this study, the scale was translated into Arabic and then translated back into English to verify the translation for suitable wording.

Within the current study, the scale showed good internal consistency. The Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale was found to be .90. Each of the subscales assessing specific sources of emotional support demonstrated good internal consistency: Parents (.93), Teachers (.91), Peers (.89) and Social Media Communications (.93).

1.2.2.1. Intrinsic motivation

The Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI; Ryan, 1982) was used to assess participants’ intrinsic motivation. The task version of the IMI is a 22 item, seven point Likert format instrument which measures interest (seven items), perceived competence (five items), perceived choice (five items) and pressure or tension (four items). Responses were provided on a seven point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Prior studies have demonstrated acceptable psychometric characteristics for the instrument (McCauley, Duncan, & Tammen, 1989; McCauley, Wraith, & Duncan, 1991; Tsigilis & Theodosiou, 2003). For this study, the scales were translated into Arabic Language and translated back into English to ensure the translation contained suitable wording. The internal consistency coefficient for the total scale was found to be .92. For the subscales of Interest/Enjoyment, Perceived Competence, Perceived Choice, and Pressure/Tension the Cronbach alphas were found to be .91, .85, .80 and .62 respectively.

2. Results

Descriptive statistics for emotional support, intrinsic motivation and mental motivation scores are presented in Table 1. Statistically detectable non-zero correlations were found between emotional support, intrinsic motivation and mental motivation. In the sample of gifted students, emotional support was correlated with intrinsic motivation (r = .24, p < .05) and mental motivation (r = .30, p < .05), suggesting that emotional support has a moderately strong influence on intrinsic motivation and disposition for critical thinking. Likewise, for non-gifted students emotional support was also correlated with intrinsic motivation (r = .37, p < .05) and mental motivation (r = .40, p < .05). The tests of the difference yielded no statistic differences between gifted and non-gifted students for either pairs of correlations.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for emotional support, intrinsic motivation and mental motivation by giftedness and gender

	Gifted			Non-gifted
Variable	Mean	SD	n	Mean	SD	n
Emotional support
Female (n = 49)	212.93	34.10	49	195.59	29.58	72
Male (n = 42)	203.68	32.77	42	211.14	34.14	68
Total (n = 91)	292.77	32.54	91	202.77	32.64	140
Intrinsic motivation
Female (n = 49)	110.88	19.57	49	87.55	19.65	72
Male (n = 42)	93.82	22.32	42	91.81	23.60	68
Total (n = 91)	102.59	22.56	91	89.52	21.54	140
Mental motivation
Female (n = 49)	188.22	21.40	49	177.45	17.72	72
Male (n = 42)	171.28	19.27	42	176.36	13.74	68
Total (n = 91)	179.45	22.20	91	176.95	1.93	140

A between-groups multivariate analysis of variance was used to test for gender and giftedness effects: emotional support, intrinsic motivation and mental motivation were the dependent variables in the analysis while giftedness and gender were between-groups variables. The results yielded a statistically detectable interaction effect (F (3, 225) = 6.028, p < .001; Wilk’s Λ = 0.926.) as well as main effects for gender (F (3, 225) = 5.822, p < .001; Wilk’s Λ = 0.928.) and giftedness (F (3, 225) = 6.868, p < .000; Wilk’s Λ = 0.916.). The interaction between giftedness and gender is readily apparent in Figures 1–3. Follow-up univariate analysis of variance tests yielded statistically detectable interaction effects for emotional support, intrinsic motivation and mental motivation (see Table 2). Main effects for gender were found for intrinsic motivation and mental motivation but not for emotional support. A main effect for giftedness was found for intrinsic motivation but not for emotional support or mental motivation (Table 2).

Table 2. Results of univariate ANOVAs for emotional support, intrinsic motivation and mental motivation by giftedness and gender

Variable	F	df	MSE	p
Giftedness
Emotional support	1.246	1,227	1074.26	.26
Intrinsic motivation	19.36	1,227	449.04	<.001
Mental motivation	1.261	1,227	353.29	.26
Gender
Emotional support	.51	1,227	1074.26	.48
Intrinsic motivation	5.01	1,227	449.04	.03
Mental motivation	12.64	1,227	353.29	<.001
Interaction
Emotional support	7.87	1,227	1074.26	.005
Intrinsic motivation	13.89	1,227	449.04	<.001
Mental motivation	9.77	1,227	353.29	.002

Figure 1. Emotional support by giftedness and gender.

Figure 2. Intrinsic motivation by giftedness and gender.

Figure 3. Mental motivation by giftedness and gender.

Post-hoc analyses using Fisher’s least significant difference test showed that gifted females reported statistically greater emotional support than non-gifted females (p < .01), and the difference was large (g = .55). Non-gifted males experienced greater perceived emotional support than gifted males (p < .01), and the difference was moderately small (g = .22). There was a large, statistically detectable effect whereby non-gifted males reported greater emotional support than non-gifted females (p < .01, g = .48), while the emotional support reported by gifted females was not greater than that of gifted males (p > .01).

Gifted females reported higher levels of intrinsic motivation than non-gifted females (p < .01) and gifted males, and in both instances the differences were large (g = 1.19 and g = .82 respectively). On the other hand, there were no statistical differences between non-gifted males and non-gifted females (p > .01), and between non-gifted males and gifted males (p > .01). Likewise, gifted females had greater mental motivation than non-gifted females (p < .01, g = .55) and gifted males (p < .01, g = .82). However, there was no difference between non-gifted males and non-gifted females, or between non-gifted and gifted males.

To evaluate differences in sources of emotional support on intrinsic motivation and mental motivation, the mean of each source of emotional support (teacher, parent, peers, social media) was calculated. The highest mean for each individual was used as indicator of the primary source of emotional support for the respondent. One-way analysis of variance tests were used to determine if there were differences in the sources of emotional support on intrinsic motivation and mental motivation (Table 3).

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and results of one-way analysis variance tests for intrinsic motivation and mental motivation by source of emotional support and giftedness

Variable	Source of support	Mean	SD	F	df	p
Intrinsic motivation
Gifted students
	Teacher (n = 9)	82.67	24.03	4.38	3,87	.006
	Parent (n = 39)	94.85	17.63
	Peers (n = 35)	90.40	19.86
	Social media (n = 8)	67.38	30.34
Non-gifted students
	Teacher (n = 12)	115.17	17.42	4.71	3,137	.004
	Parent (n = 78)	106.08	21.01
	Peers (n = 41)	95.17	23.50
	Social media (n = 9)	89.44	24.15
Mental Motivation
Gifted students
	Teacher (n = 9)	174.22	17.44	1.47	3,87	.23
	Parent (n = 39)	180.90	16.30
	Peers (n = 35)	173.49	15.82
	Social media (n = 8)	175.88	10.03
Non-gifted students
	Teacher (n = 12)	184.42	19.56	2.90	3,137	.04
	Parent (n = 78)	183.33	21.45
	Peers (n = 41)	175.24	23.42
	Social media (n = 9)	165.44	14.98

As evident in Table 3, the greatest sources of emotional support for most gifted students are parents and peers. For non-gifted students, parents are the greatest source of emotional support, and to a lesser extent, peers. What is noteworthy, though, is that students for whom parents are their greatest source of emotional support also have high levels of intrinsic motivation and mental motivation.

3. Discussion

The results of this study lend support to the role of emotional support in the development of Jordanian adolescents, in particular those who are gifted. Emotional support was correlated with intrinsic motivation and mental motivation, for both gifted and non-gifted students. This finding suggests that the development of close relationships that are supportive, caring and affirming plays an important role in both the tendency to be curious, inquisitive and creative, and the willingness to utilize one’s intellectual resources.

That gifted students tended, on average, to have higher intrinsic and mental motivation in Jordian culture is understandable. Intrinsic motivation appears to be a characteristic of giftedness, and intrinsic motivation is influence through interaction with the environment. Schools for gifted students in Jordan tend to have greater resources and provide richer experiences for their students. They also have higher expectations, enriched curricula, and adopt teaching strategies that encourage intrinsic and mental motivation.

The Jordanian culture tends to confer respect and esteem upon gifted students which, in turn, enhances the self-esteem of the students. This may be particularly salient within Jordanian families. In Jordanian families, there is a tendency to distinguish the gifted children from their non-gifted siblings, and subsequently strive to meet the academic, personal and financial demands to support the gifted child. This, in turn, helps foster the development of intrinsic and mental motivation.

Gifted females in Jordanian culture seem to be well-supported, and that support gets translated into behaviours. That is, having been supported, gifted Jordanian girls become intrinsically and mentally motivated. Although gifted males reported statistically similar levels of emotional support as gifted females, the gifted females had greater intrinsic and mental motivation than their male counterparts. In other words, investing in emotional support for gifted Jordanian girls yields benefits that do not occur with boys. This may be due, in part, to an implicit competition that may occur between females and males. Females may be more motivated towards learning than males in order to achieve levels of excellence and advancement within a masculine society. At the same time, gifted females may be competing against each other for status within the male dominated culture. Schools and families may be more sympathetic towards gifted females, believing they are in more need of support than males, thereby providing emotional support which enhances intrinsic and mental motivation. Consequently, gifted females strive to appear to be emotionally mature in order to gain the respect of others, including peers and teachers. The end result is that gifted females may show more interest, engage in greater study and put forth greater effort in order to prove themselves capable within a masculine society.

If being a gifted female yields benefits in Jordanian culture, being a gifted male seems to be detrimental. Gifted males do not appear to benefit as much as their non-gifted counterparts. Gifted males reported less emotional support than non-gifted males. They also reported less intrinsic and mental motivation. Gifted males are less likely to have close relationships which are caring and affirming, and are less likely to be curious, inquisitive and creative. They are less willing to utilize their intellectual resources.

Non-gifted males reported higher levels of emotional support, intrinsic motivation and mental motivation than non-gifted females. One reason for this might be the role that social media may play. Males have more freedom and leniency than females in socializing with peers, and in using social media as a means of communicating with them outside of school. Use of social media by females is often restricted by parents, and reflects the female students’ belief that social media communications with peers will be met with criticism. However, Jordanian parents may be more willing to allow gifted females greater access to social media because the parents may have greater confidence in the gifted female, trusting their judgment and desire to excel academically.

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

M. Q. Heilat

Prof.M. Q. Heilat Professor of Educational Psychology at Al-Balqa Applied University, Ph. D. in Educational Psychology/Developmental Psychology. Dr. Heilat is an expert in the field of gifted, talented education, critical thinking skills, and accredited from ministry of higher education in Jordan. He has published 28 research articles in per reviewed indexed local and international journals. Participated in several international conferences and has supervised 20 Master students’ theses in education psychology, gifted and talented Master Programs.

T. Seifert

Prof.T. Seifert Professor of Education at Memorial University, Canada. Dr. Seifert has expertise in the psychology of learning and motivation. He has published articles across a broad range of topics such as achievement motivation, school leadership, distance education, child development, childhood obesity, and eating disorders. He has supervised many Master’s and doctoral students.