L2 SELVES, EMOTIONS, AND MOTIVATED BEHAVIORS

1

Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 2016, page 1 of 29 .doi:10.1017/S0272263116000243

© Cambridge University Press 2016

L2 SELVES, EMOTIONS, AND MOTIVATED BEHAVIORS

Yasser Teimouri Georgetown University

This study has aimed to investigate language learners’ emotional experiences through the lens of L2 future self-guides. To that end, the L2 motivational self system was chosen as the theoretical framework to relate learners’ emotions to their L2 selves. However, due to incon-sistent results of past research concerning the motivational role of the ought-to L2 self, a revision of the model is proposed, discussed theoretically, and tested empirically. The results revealed a trichoto-mous model of L2 selves—ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self/own, and ought-to L2 self/others—with distinct motivational profi les. Further-more, different types of L2 self-discrepancies were found to result in different emotional reactions on the part of L2 learners. Overall, the study provides a clearer picture of L2 learners’ emotions and their motivation in second language acquisition.

INTRODUCTION

Emotions play important roles in the process of language learning and teaching. The study of learners’ emotional reactions, for instance, can account for differences between engaged and unengaged learners, explaining why some learners with motivational goals are not stimulated enough to take action (MacIntyre, 2002 ; also see Prior & Kasper, 2016 ). Moreover, teachers can benefi t from the fi ndings of such studies to devise

I would like to thank Lourdes Ortega, Alison Mackey, John Norris, the anonymous reviewers as well as SSLA editors for their constructive and thorough feedback on the earlier versions of the manuscript. I am also grateful to Somayeh Tahmouresi for her assistance in different stages of the study.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yasser Teimouri, 1421 37th Street NW, Washington, DC, 20057-1051. E-mail: [email protected]

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1017/S0272263116000243&domain=pdf

Yasser Teimouri2

strategies not only to address negative emotions that L2 learners may experience in the process of language learning but also to keep learners motivated by creating more positive and facilitative emotions (Arnold, 1999 ). Although previous studies have mostly focused on negative emo-tions and, in particular, language anxiety, this trend has shifted recently with some second language acquisition (SLA) scholars paying more atten-tion to positive emotions (e.g., Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014 ; MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012 ). The inclusion of emotions in L2 motivation research, more specifi cally, in the L2 motivational self system, has also been rec-ognized and highlighted by L2 motivation researchers (e.g., Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009 ; MacIntyre, Mackinnon, & Clément, 2009 ). MacIntyre et al. ( 2009 ), for instance, argues that exclusion of emotions in motivational research would leave possible L2 selves as simply cold cognitive repre-sentations of learners’ goals. MacIntyre and Gregersen ( 2012 ) also attribute the major motivational forces of learners’ L2 selves to different types of emotions, arguing that the motivational drive of L2 possible selves cannot be fully captured without considering the emotional states arising from different types of self-discrepancies or congruencies.

In an attempt to extend the realm of emotion research in SLA, and as a response to calls for the inclusion of emotions in motivation research (e.g., Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009 ; MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012 ), the present study aims to investigate three important emotional states—anxiety, joy, and shame—within the L2 motivational self system (Dörnyei, 2005 , 2009 ). The study seeks to relate L2 learners’ affect to their L2 future self-guides. As noted, SLA research has traditionally been very interested in anxiety (e.g., Horwitz, 2010 ), whereas joy, a type of pos-itive emotion, has only recently attracted attention (e.g., Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014 ), and shame has so far remained fully outside the scope of the disciplinary interest of SLA. Although the L2 motivational self system provides a solid theoretical framework for relating learners’ emotions to their motivation, there are still some critical issues pertain-ing to the model that remain unexplored (see Dörnyei, 2009 ). Accord-ingly, the fi rst section of the present article addresses those issues with a theoretical discussion of the model, its components, and the sources of ambiguities that have surfaced in past research. Next, a revision of the model is proposed, discussed theoretically, and tested empirically. Finally, potential links between different types of emotions and the learners’ L2 future self-guides are explored.

THE L2 MOTIVATIONAL SELF SYSTEM: THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL CONCERNS

The L2 motivational self system (Dörnyei, 2005 , 2009 ) is the latest attempt to broaden the scope of L2 motivation by reforming and synthesizing

L2 Selves, Emotions, and Motivated Behaviors 3

our previous understandings of L2 learners’ motivation (e.g., Noels, 2003 ; Ushioda, 2001 ) within theories of possible selves in mainstream psychology (e.g., Higgins, 1987 ; Markus & Nurius, 1986 ). The fi ndings of the extensive research using this model have lent strong support to its validity and applicability (e.g., Csizér & Kormos, 2009 ; Csizér & Lukács, 2010 ; Kormos, Kiddle, & Csizér, 2011 ; Lamb, 2012 ; Papi & Teimouri, 2012 , 2014 ; Ryan, 2009 ; Taguchi, Magid, & Papi, 2009 ). The L2 motivational self system (Dörnyei, 2005 , 2009 ) consists of three constructs assumed to motivate language learners: ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self, and L2 learning experience. The ideal L2 self is the representation of learners’ personal desires, aspirations, and ideals concerning language learning. The ought-to L2 self, by contrast, characterizes the image L2 learners believe their signifi cant others (e.g., family members, friends, teachers) expect them to realize. This less-internalized future self-guide is the representation of L2 learners’ duties, responsibilities, and obligations. The third component, language learning experience, refl ects the learner’s attitudes toward learning the target language and is amenable to the immediate learning context and environment (e.g., L2 course, L2 teacher, learning materials). Of the three motivational constructs of the L2 motivational self system, language learning experience has been found to be the stron-gest predictor of learners’ motivated behaviors (e.g., Papi & Teimouri, 2012 ; Taguchi et al., 2009 ). Ideal L2 self has also been found to be a strong variable contributing to learners’ motivation and strongly asso-ciated with language learning experience (e.g., Papi & Teimouri, 2012 ; Taguchi et al., 2009 ). However, the results concerning the relationship between ought-to L2 self and learners’ learning motivated behavior have been inconsistent. While some studies found a positive relation-ship, the strength of the relationship was negligible (e.g., Dörnyei & Chan, 2013 ; Islam, Lamb, & Chambers, 2013 ; Papi, 2010 ; Taguchi et al., 2009 ). Other studies found no relationship between learners ought-to L2 self and their motivated behaviors (e.g., Csizér & Kormos, 2009 ; Kormos et al., 2011 ; Papi & Teimouri, 2012 ). Yet, in other studies, the ought-to L2 self was not even identifi ed as a motivational construct (e.g., Csizér & Lukács, 2010 ; Dörnyei & Chan, 2013 ; Kormos & Csizér, 2008 ; Lamb, 2012 ).

These inconsistent fi ndings have led researchers to cast doubts on the applicability of the ought-to L2 self in specifi c contexts or its construct validity. Taguchi et al. ( 2009 ), for example, suggested that socioeducational factors related to the context of the study may play a role in the motivational effect of learners’ ought-to L2 self. They spec-ulated that in some specifi c contexts (e.g., China, Japan, Iran) because the nature of foreign language education is examination oriented, or because possessing knowledge of the target language is considered to be closely associated with learners’ socioeconomic status within

Yasser Teimouri4

that society, the ought-to L2 self might regulate its effects on learners’ efforts and persistence toward language learning (Taguchi et al., 2009 ). However, in other contexts, such as Western countries, where the pres-ence of such social pressures is not prominent, the effects of ought-to L2 self on learners’ motivation may diminish. Other researchers, none-theless, have questioned the construct validity of the ought-to L2 self, and have called for its reformulation (e.g., Dörnyei & Chan, 2013 ; Lamb, 2012 ). They argued that L2 obligations and duties may have differential motivational impact due to their degree of internalization on the part of the learners. Dörnyei and Chan ( 2013 ), for example, recom-mended distinct scales of learners’ ought-to L2 self, each accounting for different types of external motivational factors. Highlighting the interac-tive nature of learners’ L2 selves, Kim ( 2009 ) also provided some evi-dence that learners’ ought-to L2 self can be transformed into ideal L2 self through the process of internalization if learners have successfully attached a personal meaning or value to learning the L2.

Although the level of internalization can serve as the theoretical ground to revise the construct of ought-to L2 self, it also poses another challenge regarding the general distinction between learners’ ideal L2 self and the ought-to L2 self. As Dörnyei and Ushioda ( 2009 ) succinctly wonder, “[A]t what point can we claim with confi dence that a desired possible self is ‘ideal’, that is, fully owned by the learner, rather than ‘ought-to’, that is, imposed on the learner by others?” (p. 352). Drawing on Higgins’s self-regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997 , 1998 , 2011 ), the fol-lowing section is aimed at providing an answer to this question by giving a detailed discussion of motivational distinctions of learners’ ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self.

MOTIVATIONAL DISTINCTIONS OF IDEAL L2 SELF AND OUGHT-TO L2 SELF: PSYCHOLOGICAL SENSITIVITIES, STRATEGIC INCLINATIONS, AND MOTIVATED BEHAVIORS

According to Higgins’s self-regulatory focus theory (1998, 2011), there are two types of self-regulation: promotion-focus and prevention-focus self-regulation. L2 learners with a predominant promotional self-regulation are focused on advancement, growth, and development, and they represent L2 goals as hopes, aspirations, or ideals. In a promo-tional focus, the concern is with gains and nongains. In contrast, L2 learners with a predominant preventional self-regulation are focused on protection, safety, and security, and they represent L2 goals as duties, obligations, or oughts. In a preventional focus, the concern is with losses and nonlosses. The ideal self has a promotional focus and rep-resents the attributes learners ideally would like to possess. Thus, the psychological situations involved in the ideal self are related to the


presence or absence of positive outcomes (i.e., gains vs. nongains). The ought self, in contrast, has a preventional focus and represents the attributes that learners are expected to meet as a sense of duty or responsibility. Thus the psychological situations involved in the ought self are related to the presence or absence of negative outcomes (i.e., losses vs. nonlosses). This distinction between ideal self and ought self suggests that in situations in which sensitivity to the pres-ence or absence of positive outcomes is greater, the ideal self concerns predominate, and, in situations in which sensitivity to the presence or absence of negative outcomes is greater, the ought self concerns predominate (Molden, Lee, & Higgins, 2008 ). Dörnyei also included this distinction between learners’ ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self in his L2 motivational self system. The former was defi ned to have a promo-tional focus, while the latter has a preventional focus (e.g., Dörnyei, 2005 , 2009 ). However, the composite questionnaire items that measure the ought-to L2 self are mixed in regard to the positivity or negativity of end outcomes, such that the conceptual defi nition of the ought-to L2 self has been violated through the operationalization of the scale. While some of the items, such as “I must learn English, otherwise my parents will be disappointed in me” truly capture the sensitivity of the ought-to L2 self to the presence or absence of negative outcomes (i.e., disappointment), other items such as “I must learn English, so that people around me will respect me more” clearly pertain to the pres-ence or absence of positive outcomes (i.e., respect) and are there-fore more representative of the ideal L2 self than the ought-to L2 self. Yet other items, such as “I should learn English because my friends think it is important” are ambiguous in the sense that the valence of the psychological situation is not determined. Items of mixed valence cancel out each other’s effects. This might, therefore, be a good expla-nation for poor results regarding the validity of the scale reported in past studies (e.g., Lamb, 2012 ).

The second distinction between learners’ ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self could be attributed to different strategic inclinations of the learners striving to reach their L2 desired end-states. L2 learners with a predominant promotion-focused system take an “eagerness” strategy to approach a match between their current self and their desired end-states, whereas L2 learners with a predominant prevention-focused system adopt “vigilance” as a strategy to avoid a match between their current self and their undesired end-states (Higgins, 2011 ). Within the L2 motivational self system, while the strategic inclination of avoidance concerning the presence of negative outcomes has been highlighted when defi ning the ought-to L2 self (e.g., Dörnyei, 2005 , 2009 ), the opera-tionalization of the composite items of the scale assumed to measure the ought-to L2 self has not taken it into account in any of the existing questionnaires (e.g., Taguchi et al., 2009 ). Considering the previous

Yasser Teimouri6

examples, not only do those items fail to represent sensitivity toward the presence of negative outcomes, but they also fail to include the stra-tegic inclination of vigilant avoidance.

Finally, the motivational distinctions of learners’ ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self can also be accounted for by examining different types of learners’ motivated behaviors as criterion measures. Past research using the L2 motivational self system has mostly drawn on learners’ intended efforts as the criterion measure to examine the motivational effects of their ideal L2 self and the ought-to L2 self. Although the amount of time, effort, and energy L2 learners expend in the process of L2 learning is certainly representative of how motivated they are, such a measure fails to distinguish subtle motivational distinctions of ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self. For example, it is not surprising to see L2 learners with either strong ought-to L2 selves or strong ideal L2 selves invest similar amounts of time and effort during their exams. In short, an all-effort measure of learners’ motivation excludes the quality of the sources of their motivation. Thus, in order to capture the motivational distinctions of learners’ ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self, as two qualitatively different sources of motivation, we also need motivational measures (i.e., different types of motivated behaviors) that have the potential to represent such qualities. The present study assumes willingness to communicate in the second language (L2 WTC) as another yet qualitatively different form of motivation (see MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément, & Noels, 1998 ). According to Dörnyei ( 2005 ), L2 WTC is the outcome of the interplay of linguistic confi dence and the ideal L2 self. Because the ideal L2 self represents a learner’s image of themselves engaging in interaction with others voluntarily using the target language, it should play a critical role in his or her willingness to communicate in the L2. In sum, examining learners’ willingness to communicate along with their efforts, as two different forms of motivation, through the lens of the L2 motivational self system seems likely to provide fruitful results insofar as giving us a better picture of the distinct motivational func-tions of their L2 selves.

So far, the distinct motivational functions of learners’ ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self were discussed in terms of their predomi-nant self-regulatory focus (promotion and prevention), sensitivity to different psychological situations (gains and losses), strategic incli-nations (eager approach and vigilant avoidance), and qualitatively different motivated behaviors (effort and L2 WTC). Also, the possible sources of ambiguities concerning the construct of ought-to L2 self, as identifi ed in fi ndings of past research, were addressed in detail. In the next section, the theoretical framework for the revision of the L2 motivational self system, more specifi cally, the construct of ought-to L2 self, will be discussed by drawing on Higgins’s self-discrepancy theory (1987, 2011).


SELF-DISCREPANCY THEORY: THE THEORETICAL BASIS FOR THE EXTENSION OF L2 MOTIVATIONAL SELF SYSTEM

According to self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987 , 2011 ), when learners perceive a distance between their actual self and their desired future self, they feel discomfort. This discomfort triggers the incentive and direc-tion to reduce the distance and match the current self with the desired self. The theory comprises four types of future self-guides: (a) ideal self/own, which represents the attributes one hopes or aspires to possess; (b) ideal self/others, which represents attributes one believes others would like him or her, ideally, to possess; (c) ought self/own, which represents attributes one should or ought to possess; and (d) ought self/others, which represent attributes one should or ought to possess because others expect them to do so. Of the four future self-guides, Dörnyei ( 2005 , 2009 ) has incorporated only ideal self/own and ought-to self/others into the L2 motivational self system, excluding the other two future self-guides (ideal self/other and ought-to self/own). It seems that the reason for this exclusion has been simply to avoid the potential confusion that may arise regarding the distinction between learners’ ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self; for example, how the learner’s ideal self from the view of others (i.e., ideal self/others) would be different from his or her ought-to L2 self (Dörnyei, 2009 , p. 13) or how the learn-er’s internalized oughts (e.g., ought-to self/own) would be different from his or her ideal self (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009 , p. 352). However, as argued in the preceding text in detail, the motivational distinctions of learners’ ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self are clear when we take into close account their self-regulatory foci, sensitivities to psychological situa-tions, strategic inclinations, and motivated behaviors. The own versus other distinction of future L2 selves is also consistent with the fi ndings of past research concerning the determinants of learners’ ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self. While instrumentality promotion and attitudes toward target community and culture were found as two major constit-uents of learners’ ideal L2 self, instrumentality prevention and family infl uence were found to be the major factors leading to learners’ ought-to L2 self (e.g., Papi & Teimouri, 2012 ; Taguchi et al., 2009 ). The learners’ attitudes toward the target community, or the infl uence of their signifi -cant others, such as family, can be interpreted as the social aspects of their desirable L2 future self-guides, whereas the instrumental or prag-matic reasons for learning an L2 can be translated into learners’ per-sonal aspects of the desired future end-states. Ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self thus represent future self-guides that are both personally and socially desirable for learners. As a result, it can be argued that ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self from the perspective of “own” represent personal aspects of learners’ future self-guides, and ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self

Yasser Teimouri8

from the perspective of others represent the social aspects of their future self-guides. It should be noted here that L2 learners’ ought-to L2 self/others or ideal L2 self/others are representative of L2-related goals that learners think or believe their signifi cant others expect or would ideally like them to achieve.

In sum, the bifurcation of learners’ ought-to L2 self into ought-to L2 self/own and ought-to L2 self/others gains theoretical ground for its revision. Although the results of past research questioned only the theoretical validity of the ought-to L2 self, the same approach was adopted in this study toward the ideal L2 self to see if L2 learners’ L2 ideals can also be distinguished in terms of ideal L2 self/own and ideal L2 self/others. Overall, the four types of L2 future self-guides will represent a continuum of learners’ motives whose motivational effects can be examined based on their level of internalization (see Deci & Ryan, 1985 ; Dörnyei, 2009 ). In the next section, language learners’ emotional states will be explored in relation to their L2 future self-guides. Three important emotional states, namely, anxiety, joy, and shame, and their relationships with different types of future self-guides are discussed. The inclusion of shame and anxiety, two negative emo-tions, and joy, a positive emotion, in the present study is based on the fi ndings of past research in both SLA and social psychology con-cerning how learners’ perceived self-discrepancies or congruencies may generate different emotional reactions (Higgins, 1987 ; MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012 ).

LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCES AND THEIR L2 FUTURE SELF-GUIDES

Anxiety

Anxiety is by far the most researched emotion in the fi eld of SLA. A review of the literature shows that most research in SLA has attrib-uted a negative role to anxiety during the process of second language learning, impairing language learners’ cognitive process (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994 ), L2 WTC and L2 use (Hashimoto, 2002 ; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996 ), motivation (Papi, 2010 ), and, consequently, language achievement (Aida, 1994 ; Gardner, Smythe, Clement, & Gliksman, 1976 ; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994 ; Young, 1986 ). Nevertheless, other studies (e.g., Chastain, 1975 ; Kleinmann, 1977 ) have found that anxiety may have some benefi cial outcomes. The facilitative and debilitative dis-tinction of anxiety has been offered as a solution to account for incon-sistent results concerning the effects of anxiety on SLA (see Scovel, 1978 ). While this proposal is helpful, little is known about how anxiety exerts its positive and negative effects for different language learners.


More specifi cally, why does anxiety function as facilitative for some specifi c learners while harming others? Adopting a motivational per-spective, Papi and Teimouri ( 2014 ) related facilitative and debilitative aspects of anxiety to language learners’ motivational orientations—prevention and promotion systems—arguing that anxiety fi ts prevention-focused learners in stimulating them to expand more vigilant efforts to avoid the presence of negative outcomes. Thus, it is benefi cial for their motivation; whereas, conversely, because promotion-focused students are concerned with advancement and progress and sensitive to the presence of positive outcomes, anxiety represents a misfi t and thus is harmful to their motivation. The inclusion of anxiety in the present study is the attempt to test this claim.

Joy

Unlike negative emotions that are conceptualized based on their types (e.g., agitation vs. dejection), psychologists traditionally clas-sify positive emotions based on their degree of intensity, or their level of activation or arousal (Ekman, 1992 ; Izard, 1977 ). High-intense pos-itive emotions are defi ned as joy or happiness, while low-intense posi-tive emotions are referred to as pride or contentment (Averill & More, 2000 ). Extensive research has shown that positive emotions play an important role in one’s success or well-being in life. Happy people, for instance, have been found to project more positive attitudes toward others (Lyubomirsky & Tucker, 1998 ), judge people more favorably (Cooper, Okamura, & Gurka, 1992 ), experience fewer confl icts with others and do better at resolving issues in groups (Barsade, Ward, Turner, & Sonnenfeld, 2000 ), engage more strongly in activities (Lucas, 2001 ), and perform better on complex mental tasks and in gaining new information (Staw & Barsade, 1993 ).

Recently, some SLA scholars have become interested in the study of positive emotions and shifted their attention toward exploring their motivational effects on second language learners (see Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014 ). MacIntyre and Gregersen ( 2012 ), for instance, argued for the motivational effects of positive emotions such as broadening learners’ attention and thinking, countering the effects of negative emotions, promoting resilience to stressful events, building personal resources, and leading toward greater well-being. The inclusion of joy in this study can also be interpreted as an attempt to continue this line of research in SLA. In the present study, joy refers to positive emotions that language learners experience in the process of learning or using the target language either within the boundary of a specifi c instructional context or in authentic real life situations. Because the ideal L2 self

Yasser Teimouri10

has a promotional focus and involves the presence and absence of pos-itive outcomes, a congruency or a match between L2 learners’ present self and their desired self would induce a sense of elation, such as joy. As a result, in this study, it is assumed that learners with strong ideal L2 selves are more likely to experience the emotional state of joy while learning English.

Shame

A negative emotion that L2 learners are prone to experience in the course of learning a L2 is the painful and ugly feeling of shame. According to Lewis ( 1971 ), upon the appearance of transgression or failure on the part of learners, the shame experience arises when the self is the focal center of negative criticism. The painful feeling of shame follows a sense of shrinking, which causes the learner to feel small and worthless. Consequently, the L2 learner would be more inclined toward seeking a way of escaping (Tangney & Dearing, 2002 ). Depending on the focus of attention, thoughts, and behavior, shame can be experi-enced internally or externally (Gilbert, 1998 , 2003 ). Internal shame occurs when L2 learners hold negative judgments toward their per-sonal attributes and characteristics that are related but not limited to the target language (Pinto-Gouveia & Matos, 2011 ). The focus of attention is inward, or self-critical of one’s defi cits. External shame (or social shame), on the contrary, occurs when L2 learners are con-cerned with how their self is projected in the mind of others (Keltner & Harker, 1998 ). The focus of attention is outward, related to how the learner is perceived as inferior, unattractive, or defective (Gilbert, 2003 ; Kaufman, 1996 ). The profound implications of shame on one’s motivation, interpersonal relationships, and moral behavior have been recognized and investigated thoroughly in mainstream psychology. The fi ndings of past research have established links between shame and self-criticism and self-blame (Gilbert, 1998 ), inferiority (Allan & Gilbert, 1997 ), helplessness, powerlessness, shyness, perfectionism (e.g., Gilbert, 2014 ; Lutwak & Ferrari, 1996 ), social anxiety, and fear of negative evaluations (e.g., Harder & Zalma, 1990 ).

The inclusion of shame into the L2 motivational self system sheds more light on our understanding of L2 learners’ emotional reactions to their L2 self-perceived discrepancies, and how those emotions affect their motivational behaviors. As mentioned previously, the L2 motivational self system assumes that when learners perceive a discrepancy between their current self and their desired L2 self (ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self), they will feel a sense of discomfort that in turn creates the motivational force to reduce this discrepancy (Dörnyei, 2005 , 2009 ).


However, the vague notion of discomfort, as the mediating emotion, has not been properly addressed in previous L2 motivation research. Such an ambiguity, as a result, might lead to the conclusion that the presence of discrepancies between L2 learners’ current self and their desired L2 self is always benefi cial and motivating for them to learn a L2. This is partly true. On the negative side, self-discrepancies can also lead L2 learners to withdrawal and avoidance type of behaviors. It is intriguing to consider how the positive and negative implica-tions of self-discrepancies have been depicted differently in Dörnyei’s L2 motivational self system and its theoretical underpinning: Higgins’s self-discrepancy theory. While the positive side of L2 learners’ self-discrepancies and how they act as sources of motivation and effort has been highlighted in L2 motivational self system, the negative side of self-discrepancies and how they relate to negative emotional syndromes (shame, guilt, anxiety, etc.) was originally emphasized in self-discrepancy theory. The incorporation of shame and guilt, as the mediating emotions, into the L2 motivational self system would improve our understanding of the model in terms of how L2 learners’ perceived discrepancies between their current self and their desired future L2 self-guides may translate into different types of behaviors (Tahmouresi & Teimouri, 2016 ). When the negative affect or discomfort generated by L2 learners’ self-discrepancies is viewed as guilt, it can be argued that because guilt promotes reparative action (Tangney & Dearing, 2002 ) it encourages learners to put more effort into learning the L2 in order to compensate for their shortcomings and reduce their self-discrepancies. However, when the negative affect or discomfort generated by L2 learners’ self-discrepancies is viewed as shame, it can be argued that, because shame involves negative evaluations of one’s global self, the self-discrepancies have been conceived of as a sense of inferiority, unattractiveness, or defectiveness/defi cit on the part of the learners, leading them to with-drawal or avoidance types of behavior.

According to the self-discrepancy theory, a mismatch between a learner’s actual self and ideal self/other would result in a tendency to experience shame. Because the learner’s current self is different from the ideal state that (the learner thinks and believes) others hope or aspire the learner to possess, he or she would assume that others are disappointed in or dissatisfi ed with him or her, causing the learner to be susceptible to the emotional reaction of shame. However, Higgins’s ( 1987 ) hypothesis on relating shame to ideal self/others was ques-tioned theoretically and empirically by Tangney and her colleagues (Tangney & Dearing, 2002 ; Tangney, Niedenthal, Covert, & Barlow, 1998 ). They argued that shame involves global negative evaluation of the self, and, as a result, all types of self-discrepancies should be associ-ated with a tendency to feel shame, not restricted only to ideal self/others. This claim was supported empirically in the Tangney et al. ( 1998 )

Yasser Teimouri12

study in which shame was found to be positively correlated with all types of self-discrepancies.

THE CURRENT STUDY

Given the critical importance of L2 learners’ emotions in the process of language learning and inspired by exclusion of emotions in moti-vational research to date, the present study aims to examine L2 learners’ emotional experiences in relation to their L2 future self-guides. However, considering the inconsistent fi ndings of past research on the role of ought-to L2 self, the study fi rst seeks to revise the L2 motivational self system. Building on self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987 , 2011 ), as the cornerstone of the L2 motivational self system, a 2 × 2 model of learners’ L2 selves is proposed and tested empirically. Next motivational distinctions of the ideal L2 self and the ought-to L2 self from both standpoints on the self are investigated thoroughly in terms of language learners’ (a) general motivational orientations (promotion-focus and prevention-focus) and (b) two qualitatively different types of motivated behaviors (L2 WTC and intended effort). Finally, L2 learners’ emotional experiences (anxiety, joy, and shame) are examined in relation to their L2 future self-guides. More specifi -cally, the present study attempts to answer the following research questions: (1) Are language learners’ oughts, obligations, and duties distinguishable in

terms of ought-to L2 self/own and ought-to L2 self/others? (2) Are language learners’ ideals, hopes, and wishes distinguishable in terms of

ideal L2 self/own and ideal L2 self/others? (3) What are the motivational distinctions of learners’ ideal L2 self and ought-to

L2 self? (4) How are language learners’ emotional states related to their L2 future self-

guides?

METHOD

Participants

A total of 524 adolescent learners of English as a foreign language in Iran participated in the study by fi lling out a questionnaire. They were recruited from fi ve public junior and senior high schools. The students’ ages ranged from 12 to 18 with a mean of 15, and both sexes were well represented: 293 females and 339 males. The average self-reported language profi ciency of the students fell below Intermediate Low (ACTFL, 2012 ).


Instrument

A questionnaire was developed in Farsi in order to be used in the context of Iran. The fi rst part of the questionnaire included 56 items, measuring 11 motivational and emotional variables: ideal L2 self/own, ideal L2 self/others, ought-to L2 self/own, ought-to L2 self/others, pro-motional orientation, preventional orientation, shame, anxiety, joy, L2 WTC, and intended effort. Each variable was assessed by three to fi ve items. All the item responses were elicited using a six-point Likert scale with 1 showing strongly disagree or not at all and 6 showing strongly agree or very much . The second part of the questionnaire elicited background information, such as age, gender, and perceived language profi ciency. The questionnaire can be accessed by readers in the IRIS digital repository ( http://www.iris-database.org ). Following is a detailed description of the scales.

L2 Future Selves

The items of the scales for the self-guide constructs were developed through a two-phase pilot study. First, an open-ended questionnaire, similar to Higgins’s self-discrepancy questionnaire (Higgins, Klein, & Strauman, 1985 ), was administered to 56 secondary and high school students. The students were asked to write down their desires or obli-gations for learning English in the two allocated boxes in the ques-tionnaire. The fi rst box asked the students to list their ideals, desires, or aspirations for learning English, whereas the second box requested that students state their obligations, responsibilities, and duties for learning English. From this phase of the pilot study, 20 items were gen-erated, each measuring language learners’ ideal L2 self/own, ideal L2 self/others, ought-to L2 self/own, and ought-to L2 self/others. In a sec-ond pilot phase, a new pool of 112 secondary school students provided answers to these piloted items plus some additional items chosen from Taguchi et al. ( 2009 ) (a total a 24 items). Having examined the psycho-metric properties of the items based on item response theory analyses, 16 items (four items for each L2 self) were selected to be included in the fi nal questionnaire for the main study.

General Motivational Orientations

In order to determine distinct motivational functions of learners’ ideal L2 self (own vs. others) and ought-to L2 self (own vs. others), two scales

Yasser Teimouri14

measuring learners’ general motivational orientations (promotion-focus and prevention-focus) were adopted from Lockwood, Jordan, and Kunda ( 2002 ) and included into the questionnaire (four items measuring pro-motional focus and four items measuring preventional focus). Although there are some other instruments assessing regulatory focus in motiva-tional psychology (e.g., Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997 ), Lockwood et al.’s scale was included for its focus on the positive and negative outcomes of individuals’ hopes and obligations as indicators of one’s promotional or preventional predilections.

Motivated Behaviors

L2 willingness to communicate and intended effort, argued to represent qualitatively different forms of motivation, were also included in the study as the criterion measures to shed light on motivational distinc-tions of learners’ ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self. Four items measuring learners’ L2 willingness to communicate were adapted from Yashima ( 2002 ) to represent an English as a foreign language (EFL) context. Three items were also taken from Taguchi et al. ( 2009 ) to measure L2 learners’ intended effort, as traditionally used in L2 motivation research.

Emotional States

Concerning the scales measuring learners’ emotional states, four items were adopted from Taguchi et al. ( 2009 ) to assess L2 learners’ anxiety; four items were developed to measure learners’ positive feelings of joy during language learning and use; and six items were developed to measure shame based on the theoretical defi nition of shame and its assessment in emotional studies in mainstream psychology (see Tangney & Dearing, 2002 ).

Procedure

The questionnaires were administered to the students in a total of 18 classes, each including 20 to 35 students. Before administering the questionnaires, the students were given some general information about the purpose of the study and how to respond to the questionnaire items. They were also assured that their answers would remain confi dential and would be used solely for research purposes. The full questionnaire


was administered during their class time, and it took an average of 20 minutes to answer all the questions.

Data Analysis

Four types of statistical tests were employed to address the different research questions. First, Cronbach’s alpha of all the variables was calcu-lated and reported. Next, factor analysis was run to test the construct validity of the proposed 2 × 2 model of L2 selves followed by a series of partial correlational analyses to explore the interrelationships between L2 learners’ general motivational orientations and their L2 selves. Finally, a set of multiple regression analyses were conducted to probe the interre-lationship between L2 selves and different types of motivated behaviors and emotions. Before running the analyses, the major assumptions under-lying each analysis were examined (see Supplementary Materials).

RESULTS

As shown in Table 1 , the Cronbach’s alphas showed good reliability for all of the scales except promotion-focus and prevention-focus. Such moder-ately low reliabilities were surprising because the scales were adapted from a questionnaire whose validity and reliability had been well estab-lished in previous studies in social psychology (see Lockwood et al., 2002 ). However, it should be noted that the original questionnaire consisted of 20 items (ten items measuring promotion-focus and ten items measuring prevention-focus), and, due to some logistical concerns, only four items for each motivational scale were chosen and randomly

Table 1. Reliability coeffi cients of the variables before the PCA

Variables Mean SD α 95% CI

1 Ideal L2 Self/Own 4.82 1.15 .79 4.72 4.91 2 Ideal L2 Self/Others 4.70 1.16 .81 4.60 4.80 3 Ought-to L2 Self/Own 4.56 1.06 .67 4.47 4.65 4 Ought-to L2 Self/Others 3.06 1.34 .76 2.95 3.18 5 L2 Joy 4.73 1.19 .80 4.63 4.83 6 L2 Shame 3.71 1.23 .85 3.61 3.75 7 L2 Anxiety 3.43 1.40 .75 3.31 3.55 8 Intended Effort 4.34 1.15 .73 4.24 4.44 9 L2 WTC 4.34 1.36 .84 4.22 4.45 10 Promotion Focus 5.18 .77 .54 5.12 5.25 11 Prevention Focus 3.78 1.13 .50 3.68 3.88

Yasser Teimouri16

interspersed in the fi nal questionnaire. As promotion- and prevention-focus items measure learner’s general motivational orientations, which are seemingly unrelated to learning English, the items might have acted as distractors, reducing the reliability of the scales. Nonetheless, the scales were retained in the analyses for their importance, and their measure-ment errors were also psychometrically corrected to account for their attenuation effects on the correlations (Osborne, 2003 ; Pedhazur, 1997 ). As we will see later, they shed some light on motivational distinctions of learners’ ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self.

All of the 16 items assumed to represent four distinct L2 future selves were fi rst submitted to factor analysis using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with Oblimin rotation method. The scree plot and eigen-values greater than one were the initial criteria examined to deter-mine the number of components (see Appendix) (Plonsky & Gonulal, 2015 ). The results were indicative of three components. Alternative solutions—two-component and four-component solutions—were also examined in terms of the interpretability of the additional components and content, item loadings and cross-loadings, the additional amount of variance accounted for, and the communalities. Overall, the results of PCA, as seen in Table 2 , yielded a three-component solution as the optimal choice. Component 1 (eigenvalue = 5.32), component 2 (eigenvalue = 2.63), and component 3 (eigenvalue = 1.11) accounted for 33%, 16%, and 7% of the variance, respectively. In total, the three-component solution accounted for 56% of variance in the data. A close look at the compos-ite items of each component revealed that the items representing the students’ ought-to L2 self/own and the ought-to L2 self/others were neatly loaded onto two distinct components (components 2, 3). By contrast, all the items assumed to represent different aspects of the students’ ideal L2 self (own vs. others) fell under one component (component 1), suggesting that the distinction between the students’ ideal L2 self/own and ideal L2 self/others is not warranted. In light of these results from the PCA, the two ideal L2 self variables were collapsed into one for the remainder of analyses reported in this study ( α = .88; M = 4.76; SD = 1.07; 95% CI [4.67, 4.85]).

In the next step, a series of partial correlational analyses was run to examine the unique nature of the relationships between the students’ L2 future selves, on the one hand, as well as their relations with promotion-focus and prevention-focus variables, on the other. Partial correlations are used to examine the relationship between any two variables while removing the effects of other related variables that might otherwise infl uence the results. Also, as mentioned previously, the measurement error of the scales was corrected to reduce their attenuation effects on the correlations. 1 Partial correlational analyses were run between each two L2 selves while controlling for the effects of the other L2 self. The results showed negative, negligible correlation between the students’

L2 Selves, E

motions, and

Motivated

Behaviors

17

Table 2. Results of PCA

Component

Items

1 2 3

Ideal L2 self

Ought-to L2 self/own

Ought-to L2 self/others

1 I can imagine a day that all my friends admire my high English profi ciency. .796 2 I can imagine a day that people around me admire my high English profi ciency. .744 3 I can imagine myself using English effectively for communicating with the foreigners. .738 4 I can imagine a day that my teachers/ classmates at school/university respect my

knowledge of English..734

5 I can imagine myself understanding English movies/songs/news very well. .696 6 I can imagine myself speaking English like a native speaker. .693 7 I can imagine a day that my family admire me for learning English. .683 8 Whenever I think of my future career, I imagine myself using English. .604 9 I must learn English to avoid problems or diffi culties that I may face in the future for

not knowing English.−.728

10 I must learn English; otherwise I will encounter diffi culties in my education (school or university) for not having knowledge of English.

−.723

11 I must learn English; otherwise I will have diffi culties fi nding a job in the future. −.569 12 I must learn English otherwise I will be considered as an illiterate in the society. −.537 13 I must learn English; otherwise people around me will have a negative image of me. .831 14 I must learn English; otherwise I will be reprimanded by my parents or teachers. .757 15 I must learn English; otherwise my parents/ friends will be disappointed in me. .746 16 I must learn English; otherwise the others will think of me as a weak student. .657

Note. N = 532. All the component loadings > .40 are reported in the table. Component loadings are obtained using principal component extraction with Oblimin rotations.

Yasser Teimouri18

ideal L2 self and their ought-to L2 self/others ( r = −.289, p = .10). How-ever, the students’ ought-to L2 self/own was found to be strongly and positively related to both their ideal L2 self ( r = .66, p = .000 ) and ought-to L2 self/others ( r = .57, p = .000), respectively. Concerning the relation-ships between the students’ L2 selves and their general motivational orientations, the results showed that the ideal L2 self was robustly related to promotion-focus ( r = .56, p = .000) and had no correlation with prevention-focus ( r = −.14, p = .649). By contrast, the students’ ought-to L2 self/own showed a positive relationship with prevention-focus ( r = .38, p = .000) and no correlation with promotion-focus ( r = −.04, p = .247). Finally, the students’ ought-to L2 self/other was found to be associ-ated positively with prevention-focus ( r = .28, p = . 000) but negatively correlated with promotion-focus ( r = −.27, p = .015).

A series of multiple regression analyses using Enter method was run in order to examine the strengths of the students’ L2 future selves in predicting their motivated behaviors. Defi ning ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self/own, and ought-to L2 self/others as independent variables, and, putting intended effort and L2 WTC as dependent variables in turn, the results in Table 3 showed that all three L2 future selves emerged as pre-dictors of students’ intended effort. The motivational effects of the ideal L2 self on intended effort were the strongest among the variables. Inter-estingly, when a similar regression analysis was repeated this time with the students’ L2 WTC as the dependent variable, only the ideal L2 self emerged as the strong predicting factor.

Another set of multiple regression analyses using Enter method was conducted to examine the strengths of students’ L2 selves in predicting their emotional states. The results can be found in Table 4 . Defi ning ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self/own, and ought-to L2 self/others as inde-pendent variables, and by putting joy, anxiety, and shame as dependent variables in turn, it was found that (a) the students’ ideal L2 self and the ought-to L2 self/own acted as predictors of their emotional state of joy, with the former having the strongest effects; (b) the students’ ought-to L2 self/own and the ought-to L2 self/others acted as predictors of their emotional state of anxiety; and, fi nally, (c) the students’ ideal L2 self, the ought-to L2 self/own, and the ought-to L2 self/others were all predictors of their shame reaction, with the ideal L2 self having the weakest and the ought-to L2 self/others having the strongest effects.

DISCUSSION

In relation to research questions 1 and 2, the bifurcation of learners’ ought-to L2 self into the two standpoints of own and others was confi rmed, whereas such a distinction was not found for the ideal L2 self. This sug-gests that, while learners’ obligations, duties, and oughts concerning

L2 Selves, E

motions, and

Motivated

Behaviors

19

Table 3. Regression analyses of L2 future self-guides with intended effort and L2 WTC as criterion measures

Variables

Intended Effort L2 WTC

B SE B β R 2 /F B SE B β R 2 /F

Idea L2 Self .49 .04 .46*** .63 .05 .50*** Ought-to L2 Self/Own .16 .05 .15*** .08 .06 .06 Ought-to L2 Self/Others .08 .03 .10* .06 .04 .06 .326/87.93*** .29/73.73***

Table 4. Results of regression analyses of L2 future self-guides with joy, anxiety, and shame as criterion measures

Variables

L2 Joy L2 anxiety L2 shame

B SE B β R 2 /F B SE B β R 2 /F B SE B β R 2 /F

Idea L2 Self .63 .04 .56*** −.08 .06 −.06 .15 .05 .14*** Ought-to L2 Self/Own .13 .05 .12** .18 .06 .14** .29 .05 .25*** Ought-to L2 Self/Others −.01 .03 −.01 .37 .04 .36*** .34 .04 .38*** .38/112.18*** .18/37.98*** .35/93.63***

Yasser Teimouri20

learning a second language can be distinguished due to their degree of internalization, the same cannot be applied to learners’ hopes, aspirations, and ideals for learning the target language. This is probably because both social and personal aspects of learners’ ideal L2 self are highly internal-ized and so desirable that they do not lend themselves to separation.

Research question 3 explores the motivational distinctions of learners’ ideal L2 self and the ought-to L2 self (own vs. other). Based on the fi nd-ings of this study, learners’ ought-to L2 self/others represents the most extrinsic types of motivation involving external factors, such as paren-tal pressures or course requirements, projected on the learners for learning a second language. Its lack of correlation with ideal L2 self suggests that learners with strong ought-to L2 self/others are less likely to have a clear vision of learning or using the target language in the near future. In fact, the main motivational drive for such learners is to put vigilant effort into the process of L2 learning so as to avoid negative outcomes related to their social, surrounding contexts that temporarily require them to do so (i.e., prevention-focus regulation). Learners’ ideal L2 self, however, represents the most intrinsic types of motivation involving personal and social desires, wishes, and hopes that are independent of others and set by L2 learners. L2 learners with strong ideal L2 selves have vivid visions of their desired language-related goals and are eagerly driven to approach them in order to satisfy their growth and advancement needs (i.e., promotion-focus regulation). Finally, learners’ ought-to L2 self/own represents the least extrinsic type of motivation involving external factors that L2 learners have successfully managed to internalize to varying degrees. Its positive correlation with ought-to L2 self/others suggests the extrinsic locus of causality of ought-to L2 self/own, and its stronger correlation with ideal L2 self refl ects learners’ level of internalization. Ought-to L2 self/own represents externally imposed obligations and duties by signifi cant others for learning an L2 that are ultimately internalized or shared by the learners for their personal meaning and value (Kim, 2009 ). Although learners with strong ought-to L2 self/own have partially developed a vision of their desired L2 goals, their major motivation is still to satisfy their security needs in the future by avoiding personal diffi culties (e.g., fi nding a job) that they may encounter for not having a command of knowledge in the target language (i.e., prevention-focus regulation). Taken together, ought-to L2 self/others, ought-to L2 self/own, and ideal L2 self form a motivational continuum representing the process of internalization of learners’ L2 selves. It shows how imposed obligations and duties by signifi cant others for learning an L2 (projected L2 self) can be internalized and shared for their personal value (shared L2 self) and, ultimately, fully owned by the L2 learners (independent L2 self) (Higgins, 2011 ). Figure 1 shows a schematic representation of the trichotomous model of L2 selves and their distinct motivational properties.


As noted, motivational distinctions of learners’ ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self (own vs. others) can also be accounted for by exam-ining their different types of motivated behaviors. As argued previously, conceptualization of learners’ motivation as an all-effort notion is prob-lematic in that it fails to tease apart their qualitatively different sources of motivation. The lack of predictive power in the regression analyses for learners’ intended effort lent support to such an argument. The results showed that all three different types of learners’ L2 selves led to some increases in their intended effort. Consequently, learners’ L2 WTC was argued to represent another form of motivation that is qualitatively different from the quantitative notion of motivation as all-effort. The results confi rmed such an assumption; learners’ L2 WTC was found to be strongly predicted only by their ideal L2 self. In sum, L2 learners with a strong ideal L2 self have a predominant promotional focus and not only expand energy and time on the process of language learning but also eagerly approach their ideal image of a competent language user by willingly and actively engaging in activities that involve the actual use of the target language. By contrast, L2 learners with strong ought-to L2 selves (own vs. others) have a predominant preventional focus and vigilantly invest efforts in learning the target language in attempts to meet the requirements set by themselves or signifi cant others. Such learners, however, are more likely to avoid taking risks by voluntarily engaging in activities involving actual language use as long as their current situa-tions or conditions don’t impose such a requirement.

Research question 4 aimed to investigate the relationships between the L2 learners’ emotional states and their L2 future self-guides. The results of this study showed that L2 anxiety was associated with students’ ought-to L2 self/own and ought-to L2 self/others but had no relationship with their ideal L2 self. In contrast, L2 joy was found to be robustly associated with students’ ideal L2 self and unrelated to their ought-to

Figure 1. Schematic representation of a trichotomous model of L2 selves.

Yasser Teimouri22

L2 self/others, although it showed a weak correlation with their ought-to L2 self/own. These fi ndings lend empirical support to the hypothesis put forward in Papi and Teimouri ( 2014 ) about the facilitative and debili-tative role of anxiety on students’ motivation. L2 anxiety fi ts the motiva-tional orientation of learners with a predominant preventional focus and plays a facilitative role by keeping them alert to the presence of possible negative outcomes. However, because learners with strong ideal L2 self have a predominant promotional focus and are sensitive to the presence of positive outcomes, the emotional state of joy best fi ts their motiva-tional orientation, and anxiety represents a misfi t, having a debilitative effect on their motivation. Considering the relationships between shame and students’ L2 future self-guides, all three different L2 selves were found to be positively correlated with shame. This pattern of fi ndings lends support to the claims by Tangney et al. (contra Higgins’s (1987) original hypothesis) that students’ ought-to self and the ideal self, irrespective of standpoint on the self, are both associated with the negative, conscious feeling of shame. However, because the strength of the relationships with shame increased from the students’ ideal L2 self (the most internalized types of motivation) to their ought-to L2 self/others (the most external-ized types of motivation), the fi ndings also corroborate to some extent Higgins’s prediction. That is, L2 learners with different types of self-discrepancies are all susceptible to some extent to the emotional reaction of shame, but learners with stronger preventional concerns seem to be more vulnerable to shame and experience it more intensely when com-pared to learners with a predominant promotional focus.

LIMITATIONS, RESEARCH DIRECTIONS, AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

Although the fi ndings of this study concerning the interrelationships between students’ predominant promotion-focus and prevention-focus and their different types of L2 selves were theoretically supported and consistent with the fi ndings of past research in both L2 motivation research and social psychology (e.g., Dörnyei, 2009 ; Higgins, 1997 , 1998 ), the promotion-focus and prevention-focus scales that were par-tially adapted from Lockwood et al. ( 2002 ) exhibited limited reliability. Although the attenuation effects of these low alphas on correlations was psychometrically corrected in this study, future research may include the whole original questionnaire separately, or other reliable ques-tionnaires to investigate their relations to different types of learners’ L2 selves. Moreover, the trichotomous model of learners’ L2 selves as well as the other patterns of fi ndings in this study cannot be general-ized to other settings until similar studies are conducted in different EFL/ESL contexts and suffi cient empirical evidence is collected.


The inclusion of language learners’ general motivational orientations into future research using L2 motivational self system seems necessary. Although the promotional and preventional aspects of learners’ ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self were originally mentioned while providing the conceptual defi nition of ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self (Dörnyei, 2005 , 2009 ), subsequent research using the model solely focused on exam-ining the motivational effects of future L2 selves. Learners’ predominant self-regulatory foci provide distinct contexts within which their future goals can be conceptualized as ideal L2 self or ought-to L2 self (see Molden et al., 2008 ). The present study also introduced and incorpo-rated shame as another type of emotion into the realm of SLA and investigated its relation with learners’ self-discrepancies. The inclusion of shame as well as other self-conscious emotions (e.g., guilt) into L2 motivational self system, as mediating emotions between learners’ future L2 self-guides and their motivational behaviors, will add more explanatory power and precision to the model to account for motiva-tional behaviors of the learners (Tahmouresi & Teimouri, 2016 ). Future research on shame, as an individual differences factor in and of itself, and its implications on learners’ motivation and interpersonal behavior, may bear fruitful results both theoretically and practically. Moreover, teachers and learners’ strategies to cope with the negative conse-quences of shame may open up a new line of inquiry with great peda-gogical implications.

In a general sense, the fi ndings of this study favor a promotional approach toward second language teaching and learning. The strength of L2 learners’ ideal L2 self plays a pivotal role within such an approach. It should be noted, however, that not all L2 learners share the same goals and motivational orientations. There are still many learners that do not entertain an independent ideal L2 self, and learning a second language may simply represent an obligation. Thus, teachers are recom-mended to create a balanced motivational practice by taking advan-tage of both promotion and prevention motivational strategies to maximize students’ motivational effectiveness (Dörnyei, 2009 ; Dörnyei & Kubanyiova, 2014 ). While an accessible picture of an ideal L2 self will energize learners with a predominant promotional focus to eagerly approach it by engaging in different L2 learning activities and using the target language voluntarily, an elaborate account of the potential negative consequences of a failure to do so will keep leaners with a predominant preventional focus alert to vigilantly put more effort into avoiding them (Papi & Teimouri, 2014 ; see also Dörnyei, 2009 , Dörnyei & Kubanyiova, 2014 ). Adopting such a balanced motivational practice, hopefully, may also lay the ground for L2 learners to gradually internalize their oughts and obligations and move toward forming fully-fl edged ideal L2 selves. Regardless of their future L2 selves, all the learners are susceptible to experiencing shame to a lesser or greater extent.

Yasser Teimouri24

Depending on their L2 linguistic and communicative competence, the discrepancies between L2 learners’ current self and the self they would ideally like to present to others while using the L2 might induce a sense of shame. For instance, on the occurrence of a failure such as miscommunication or lack of comprehension during a social interaction (e.g., talking to a native speaker over the phone), some L2 learners are more likely to interpret the mishap as a defect of their global self and to avoid similar social interactions in an attempt to prevent their defective L2 self from being socially exposed. Considering the L2 class-room as a social context wherein failures are indispensable parts of learning, teachers should be cautious in using different strategies to provide learners with corrective feedback. Some types of correc-tive feedback are more shame provoking than others. For instance, while explicit corrective feedback facilitates learning through point-ing out the source of an error to the learner directly, its provision in front of other learners might lead the learner to question his or her abilities, and, consequently, make the learners susceptible to shame reaction. Teachers may also want to consider the use of positive feed-back, highlighting L2 learners’ strengths along with providing negative feedback. Learners might be less defensive and more willing to learn from their mistakes and failures if their strengths are also recognized and pointed out by the teacher.

CONCLUSION

This study aimed to investigate language learners’ emotional experi-ences through the lens of L2 future self-guides. The revision of the construct of ought-to L2 self (own vs. others) was an attempt to sys-tematically address the sources of ambiguity concerning the construct in past research using the L2 motivational self system. The fi ndings of the study provided a more nuanced picture of learners’ L2 selves, their motivational distinctions, and their dynamic nature during the process of internalization. Moreover, the results showed L2 learners’ self-discrepancies or self-congruencies result in distinct emotional experiences. All in all, the inclusion of learners’ emotions into the L2 motivational self system as mediating factors has great potential to broaden our understanding of learners’ motivational behaviors throughout the course of L2 goal-pursuit.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263116000243 .


Received 11 September 2015 Accepted 11 April 2016 Final Version Received 26 May 2016

NOTE

1. It should be noted that the promotion-focus scale had a limited ranged of responses (SD = .77) compared to the other scales measured in this study. As a result, this range restriction may also have negatively affected the reliability index of the scale as well as its correlation with other variables.

REFERENCES

Aida , Y . ( 1994 ). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese . The Modern Language Journal , 78 , 155 – 168 .

Allan , S. , & Gilbert , P . ( 1997 ). Submissive behaviour and psychopathology . British Journal of Clinical Psychology , 36 , 467 – 488 .

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages . ( 2012 ). ACTFL PROFICIENCY GUIDELINES . Retrieved May 20, 2016 from http://www.actfl .org/sites/default/fi les/pdfs/public/ACTFLProfi ciencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf .

Arnold , J . ( 1999 ). Affect in language learning . Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press . Averill , J. R. , & More , T. A . ( 2000 ). Happiness . In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.),

Handbook of emotions (pp. 663 – 676 ). New York, NY : The Guilford Press . Barsade , S. G. , Ward , A. J. , Turner , J. D. F. , & Sonnenfeld , J. A . ( 2000 ). To your heart’s con-

tent: A model of affective diversity in top management teams . Administrative Science Quarterly , 45 , 802 – 836 .

Chastain , K . ( 1975 ). Affective and ability factors in second language acquisition . Language Learning , 25 , 153 – 161 .

Cooper , H. , Okamura , L. , & Gurka , V . ( 1992 ). Social activity and subjective well-being . Personality and Individual Differences , 13 , 573 – 583 .

Csizér , K. , & Kormos , J . ( 2009 ). Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning behaviour: A comparative analysis of structural models for Hungarian secondary and university learners of English . In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 98 – 119 ). Clevedon, UK : Multilingual Matters .

Csizér , K. , & Lukács , G . ( 2010 ). The comparative analysis of motivation, attitudes and selves: The case of English and German in Hungary . System , 38 , 1 – 13 .

Deci , E. L. , & Ryan , R. M . ( 1985 ). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior . New York, NY : Plenum .

Dewaele , J. M. , & MacIntyre , P . ( 2014 ). The two faces of Janys? Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign language classroom . Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching , 4 , 237 – 274 .

Dörnyei , Z . ( 2005 ). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition . Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum .

Dörnyei , Z . ( 2009 ). The L2 motivational self system . In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motiva-tion, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9 – 42 ). Clevedon, UK : Multilingual Matters .

Dörnyei , Z. , & Chan , L . ( 2013 ). Motivation and vision: An analysis of future L2 self images, sensory styles, and imagery capacity across two target languages . Language Learning , 63 , 437 – 462 .

Dörnyei , Z. , & Kubanyiova , M . ( 2014 ). Motivating learners, motivating teachers: Building vision in the language classroom . Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press .

Dörnyei , Z. , & Ushioda , E . (Eds.). ( 2009 ). Motivation, language identity and the L2 self . Bristol, UK : Multilingual Matters .

Ekman , P . ( 1992 ). An argument for basic emotion . Cognition and Emotion , 6 , 169 – 200 . Gardner , R. C. , Smythe , P. C. , Clement , R. , & Gliksman , L . ( 1976 ). Second language acquisi-

tion: A social psychological perspective . The Canadian Modern Language Review , 32 , 198 – 273 .

Yasser Teimouri26

Gilbert , P . ( 1998 ). Shame and humiliation in the treatment of complex cases . In N. E. Tarrier , A. E. Wells , & G. E. Haddock (Eds.), Treating complex cases: The cognitive behavioural therapy approach (pp. 241 – 271 ). New York, NY : John Wiley & Sons .

Gilbert , P . ( 2003 ). Evolution, social roles and the differences in shame and guilt . Social Research , 70 , 1205 – 1230 .

Gilbert , P . ( 2014 ). Depression: The evolution of powerlessness . Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .

Harder , D. H. , & Zalma , A . ( 1990 ). Two promising shame and guilt scales: A construct valid-ity comparison . Journal of Personality Assessment , 55 , 729 – 745 .

Hashimoto , Y . ( 2002 ). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2 use: The Japanese ESL context . Second Language Studies , 20 , 29 – 70 .

Higgins , E. T. , Klein , R. , & Strauman , T . ( 1985 ). Self-concept discrepancy theory: A psycho-logical model for distinguishing among different aspects of depression and anxiety . Social Cognition , 3 ( 1 ), 51 .

Higgins , E. T . ( 1987 ). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect . Psychological Review , 94 , 319 – 340 .

Higgins , E. T . ( 1997 ). Beyond pleasure and pain . American Psychologist , 52 , 1280 – 1300 . Higgins , E. T . ( 1998 ). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational prin-

ciple . Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 30 , 1 – 46 . Higgins , E. T . ( 2011 ). Beyond pleasure and pain: How motivation works . New York, NY :

Oxford University Press . Higgins , E. T. , Shah , J. , & Friedman , R . ( 1997 ). Emotional responses to goal attainment:

Strength of regulatory focus as moderator . Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology , 72 , 515 – 525 .

Horwitz , E. K . ( 2010 ). Foreign and second language anxiety . Language Teaching , 43 , 154 – 167 .

Islam , M. , Lamb , M. , & Chambers , G . ( 2013 ). The L2 motivational self system and national interest: A Pakistani perspective . System , 4 , 231 – 244 .

Izard , C. E . ( 1977 ). Human emotions . New York, NY : Plenum Press . Kaufman , G . ( 1996 ). The psychology of shame: Theory and treatment of shame-based

syndromes . New York, NY : Springer Publishing . Keltner , D. , & Harker , L . ( 1998 ). The forms and functions of the nonverbal signal of shame .

In P. Gilbert and B. Andrews (Eds.), Shame: Interpersonal behavior, psychopathology, and culture (pp. 78 – 98 ). Oxford University Press on Demand .

Kim , T. Y . ( 2009 ). The sociocultural interface between ideal self and ought-to self: A case study of two Korean students’ ESL motivation . In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 274 – 294 ). Clevedon, UK : Multilingual Matters .

Kleinmann , H. H . ( 1977 ). Avoidance behavior in adult second language acquisition . Language Learning , 27 , 93 –17.

Kormos , J. , & Csizér , K . ( 2008 ). Age-related differences in the motivation of learning English as a foreign language: Attitudes, selves and motivated learning behavior . Language Learning , 58 , 327 – 355 .

Kormos , J. , Kiddle , T. , & Csiz ́er , K . ( 2011 ). Systems of goals, attitudes, and self-related beliefs in second-language-learning motivation . Applied Linguistics , 32 , 495 – 516 .

Lamb , M . ( 2012 ). A self-system perspective on young adolescents’ motivation to learn English in urban and rural settings . Language Learning , 62 , 997 – 1023 .

Lewis , H. B . ( 1971 ). Shame and guilt in neurosis . New York, NY : International Universities Press .

Lockwood , P. , Jordan , C. H. , & Kunda , Z . ( 2002 ). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 83 , 854 – 864 .

Lucas , R. E . ( 2001 ). Pleasant affect and sociability: Towards a comprehensive model of extraverted feelings and behaviors . Dissertation Abstracts International , 61 , 5610 .

Lutwak , N. , & Ferrari , J. R . ( 1996 ). Moral affect and cognitive processes: Differentiating shame from guilt among men and women . Personality and Individual Differences , 21 , 891 – 896 .

Lyubomirsky , S. , & Tucker , K. L . ( 1998 ). Implications of individual differences in subjective happiness for perceiving, interpreting, and thinking about life events . Motivation and Emotion , 22 , 155 – 186 .


MacIntyre , P. D . ( 2002 ). Motivation, anxiety and emotion in second language acquisition . Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning , 2 , 45 – 68 .

MacIntyre , P. D. , & Charos , C . ( 1996 ). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication . Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 15 , 3 – 26 .

MacIntyre , P. , & Gardner , R . ( 1994 ). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language . Language Learning , 44 , 283 – 305 .

MacIntyre , P. , & Gregersen , T . ( 2012 ). Emotions that facilitate language learning: The positive-broadening power of the imagination . Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching , 2 , 193 – 213 .

MacIntyre , P. D. , Mackinnon , S. P. , & Clément , R . ( 2009 ). From integrative motivation to possible selves: The baby, the bathwater and the future of language learning motiva-tion research . In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 43 – 65 ). North York, ON : Multilingual Matters .

MacIntyre , P. D. , Dörnyei , Z. , Clément , R. , & Noels , K. A . ( 1998 ). Conceptualizing willing-ness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confi dence and affi liation . The Modern Language Journal , 82 , 545 – 562 .

Markus , H. , & Nurius , P . ( 1986 ). Possible selves . American Psychologist , 41 , 954 – 969 . Molden , D. C. , Lee , A. Y. , & Higgins , E. T . ( 2008 ). Motivations for promotion and prevention .

In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 169 – 187 ). New York, NY : Guilford Press .

Noels , K. A . ( 2003 ). Learning Spanish as a second language: Learners’ orientations and perceptions of their teachers’ communication style . In Z. Dörnyei (Ed.), Attitudes, ori-entations, and motivations in language learning (pp. 97 – 136 ). Oxford, UK : Blackwell Publishing .

Osborne , J. W . ( 2003 ). Effect sizes and the disattenuation of correlation and regression coeffi cients: Lessons from educational psychology . Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation , 8 ( 11 ). Retrieved April 23, 2015 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=11 .

Papi , M . ( 2010 ). The L2 motivational self system, L2 anxiety, and motivated behavior: A structural equation modeling approach . System , 38 , 467 – 479 .

Papi , M. , & Teimouri , Y . ( 2012 ). Dynamics of selves and motivation: A cross-sectional study in the EFL context of Iran . International Journal of Applied Linguistics , 22 , 287 – 309 .

Papi , M. , & Teimouri , Y . ( 2014 ). Language learner motivational types: A cluster analysis study . Language Learning , 64 , 493 – 525 .

Pedhazur , E. J ., ( 1997 ). Multiple regression in behavioral research ( 3rd ed. ). Orlando, FL : Harcourt Brace .

Pinto-Gouveia , J. , & Matos , M . ( 2011 ). Can shame memories become a key to identity? The centrality of shame memories predicts psychopathology . Applied Cognitive Psy-chology , 25 , 281 – 290 .

Plonsky , L. , & Gonulal , T . ( 2015 ). Methodological synthesis in quantitative L2 research: A review of reviews and a case study of exploratory factor analysis . Language Learning , 65 , 9 – 36 .

Prior , M. , & Kasper , G . ( 2016 ). Emotion in multilingual interaction . John Benjamin’s. Ryan , S . ( 2009 ). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self and Japanese

learners of English . In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 120 – 143 ). Clevedon, UK : Multilingual Matters .

Scovel , T . ( 1978 ). The effect of affect: A review of the anxiety literature . Language Learning , 28 , 129 – 142 .

Staw , B. M. , & Barsade , S. G . ( 1993 ). Affect and managerial performance: A test of the sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypothesis . Administrative Science Quarterly , 38 , 304 – 331 .

Taguchi , T. , Magid , M. , & Papi , M . ( 2009 ). The L2 motivational self system amongst Chinese, Japanese, and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study . In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66 – 97 ). Clevedon, UK : Multilingual Matters .

Tahmouresi , S. , & Teimouri , Y . ( 2016 ). L2 shame-proneness and L2 guilt-proneness as two distinct individual differences: Validation of a scenario-based questionnaire. Paper presented at Annual Conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL), Orlando, FL, April 2016.

Yasser Teimouri28

Tangney , J. E , Niedenthal , E. M. , Covert , M. V. , & Barlow , D. H . ( 1998 ). Are shame and guilt related to distinct self-discrepancies? A test of Higgins’ (1987) hypothesis . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 75 , 256 – 268 .

Tangney , J. P. & Dearing , R. L . ( 2002 ). Shame and guilt . New York, NY : Guilford Press . Ushioda , E . ( 2001 ). Language learning at university: Exploring the role of motivational

thinking . In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (Technical Report #23, pp. 93 – 125 ). Honolulu, HI : University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center .

Yashima , T . ( 2002 ). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context . The Modern Language Journal , 86 , 54 – 66 .

Young , D. J . ( 1986 ). The relationship between anxiety and foreign language oral profi -ciency ratings . Foreign Language Annals , 19 , 439 – 445 .

APPENDIX

THE RESULTS OF PCA

Initial Extraction

Q1 1.000 .598 Q10 1.000 .559 Q19 1.000 .453 Q28 1.000 .536 Q3 1.000 .518 Q12 1.000 .536 Q21 1.000 .656 Q30 1.000 .561 Q5 1.000 .558 Q14 1.000 .691 Q23 1.000 .592 Q32 1.000 .504 Q7 1.000 .554 Q16 1.000 .511 Q25 1.000 .620 Q34 1.000 .611

Note. Extraction method: Principal component analysis.

L2 Selves, E

motions, and

Motivated

Behaviors

29

Total Variance Explained

Component

Initial EigenvaluesExtraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings a

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total

1 5.319 33.241 33.241 5.319 33.241 33.241 4.931 2 2.632 16.449 49.690 2.632 16.449 49.690 2.756 3 1.106 6.912 56.601 1.106 6.912 56.601 3.003 4 .865 5.406 62.007 5 .823 5.142 67.149 6 .746 4.659 71.809 7 .631 3.944 75.753 8 .572 3.573 79.326 9 .524 3.275 82.601 10 .495 3.091 85.692 11 .447 2.791 88.483 12 .432 2.699 91.182 13 .412 2.577 93.759 14 .365 2.279 96.038 15 .341 2.131 98.169 16 .293 1.831 100.000

Note. Extraction method: Principal component analysis. a When components are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance.

Documents

L2 SELVES, EMOTIONS, AND MOTIVATED BEHAVIORS