THE AMBITION LEVEL AND ITS RELATION WITH PERCEIVED SELF-EFFICACY IN LIGHT OF CERTAIN VARIABLES AMONG A SAMPLE OF JORDANIAN UNIVERSITIES STUDENTS

Fatmah Ahmad Almomani¹⁺----Aida Theeb²

¹Jerash University, Jordan

²Jerash University, Jordan

Keywords:Ambition level, Perceived self-Efficacy, Moral, Social, Cognitive and academic, Emotional personalities.

Contribution/ Originality:This study is one of very few studies which have investigated the ambition level and perceived self-efficacy on students enrolled in the universities of Jordan.

1. INTRODUCTION

Nowadays we witness successive and comprehensive developments and transformations in all life domains, which in turn influence the personality. Variables of the personality have a clear effect upon the behaviors and activities of individuals. This in turn encourages individuals to invest all their potentials to achieve their ambitions and provide meanings and values to life. Individuals are the best able to achieve happiness and success by ability to give and excel. Ambition level is an indicator of personal active characteristics and one of its important variables because it describes interaction with the environment in order to adjustment and develops. This affects social behavior enabling individuals to recognize the meaning of existence by acting in a way that provides confidence and develops skills, practices and thinking styles and ensures the existence of a high level of self-efficacy. Ambition level and perceived self-efficacy concepts received interests from researchers and psychologists alike, they tried to understand the concepts and their correlations with each other and with the other variables because individuals are the central focus of research and because of their importance in different developmental fields as they are factors defining proper development.

1.1. Study Problem and Questions

The university level of education belongs developmentally to the late teenage stage from (18-21 years), the stage is characterized by developmental manifestations that affects the individuals behaviors in quality and quantity (Al-Owaidah, 2009) behaviors that elevates human expectations and ambition level in addition to their correlation with awareness of the abilities that enable individuals to achieve what he desires and the ambition that satisfies him and brings him balance and proper adjustment; hence the problem of the study is to answer the following questions:

• What is the ambition level among a sample of Jordan Universities students?
• What is the perceived self-efficacy level among a sample of Jordan Universities students?
• What is the correlation between ambition level and perceived self-efficacy among a sample of Jordan Universities students?
• Is there a functional significant difference at (α ≥ 0.05) in the ambition level due to the variables of the study among a sample of Jordan Universities students?
• Is there a functional significant difference at (α ≥ 0.05) in perceived self-efficacy level due to the variables of the study among a sample of Jordan Universities students?

1.2. Importance of the Study

The study explores ambition level and perceived self-efficacy among university students, a late teenage stage where lots of responsibilities lies on them to develop their society. It may also be considered a part of the theoretical literature that emphasizes ambition level and perceived self-efficacy; it may be the core for further studies in future. Lack of Arabic and local studies examining the correlation between ambition level and perceived self-efficacy urged the authors to undertake the current study.

1.3. Aim of the study

The study aims to recognize the following

• The degree of ambition and perceived self-efficacy levels among a sample of Jordan universities students.
• The nature of the correlation between ambition and perceived self-efficacy levels among a sample of Jordan universities students.
• The differences in the degree of ambition and perceived self-efficacy levels among a sample of Jordan universities students due to the study variables.

1.4. Limitations of the Study

 The study is limited by its sample of; Yarmouk University, Jordan University of Science and Technology and Jerash University, both male and female students enrolled in the second semester of the academic year 2014/2015 number of (790) participated in the study.

1.5. Procedural Definitions

For the purpose of the study, the following definitions are used:
The ambition level. It is defined as a relatively stable individual characteristic that differentiate individuals readiness, reaching for difficult goals, struggling, responsibility holding and tendency for excellence (Abd-Alfattah, 2007a) perceived self-efficacy. Bandura (1993) defines it as the individuals’ beliefs about their ability to control the level of their performance and the events that affect their lives. Az-Zayat (2001) defines it as the belief or perception of the individuals’ level or effectiveness of his abilities and capacities and mental, cognitive and emotional elements used to address situations, tasks or problems and to affect events to achieve something in light of current environmental limitations. (p.50)

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Ambition Level

It is considered an important sign of individuals and community morale, because it is an indicator of human interaction with surroundings, society and environment. Ambition level contributes fundamentally in the processes of learning and teaching. Ambition level received attention from learners and scholars of psychology alike; they tried to identify the factors that determine its level (Salamah, 2007). Studies indicated that meeting ambitions activate individuals and drive them to work and invest their potentials as far as possible. Often, failures in meeting ambitions lead to poor psychological adjustment. The ambition level is useful in shedding light on causes of psychological disorders among certain individuals compared to others; hence the ambition level is a predictive diagnostic mean of individuals psychological health (Al-Marazeeq, 2010).

Frank (cited in Merhab (1989)) defines ambition level as a group of overlapping or interconnected objectives for a certain individual, achieving ambition depends on the extent of individuals' self-confidence, or the performance level that the individual expects himself to reach in familiar tasks. Hoppe invented the term to indicate the interrelationship between individual goals and success or failure expertise and he defined it as personal goals or what is expected from the individual in a certain task (as cited in Shubeir (2005)). Eysenck (cited in Abd-Alfattah (2007b)) defined the ambition level as the tendency to overcome obstacles, train on power and strive in doing a difficult task fast to achieve high levels of self-superiority.

And Abd-Alfattah (2007a) defined it as a relatively stable individual characteristic that differentiate between individuals in reaching a certain level that corresponds with the psychological formation and reference framework of the individual according to experienced successful and failure experiences.

Al-Banna (1998) refers to the ambition level as a positive trend toward achieving a specific goal the individual hopes to achieve in a life aspect, the importance degree of the goal differs according to difference of life aspects, the level and importance of the goal is determined according to the individual reference frame.

An overview on the previous literature on ambition level definitions the authors noticed variation and disagreement on a common one, some focused on goals sought as in the definition of Frank (cited in Merhab (1989)) and Hoppe (cited in Shubeir (2005)). Whereas others focused on the ambition rather than its level as did Eysenck (cited in Abd-Alfattah (2007b)) which the authors of the current study adopted despite of earlier disagreement because it is correlated with the test used, is not limited to a specific aspect of ambition, dealt with the level of ambition in general to measure it as an overall and it emphasizes the principle of individual differences.

The ambition level is considered a behavioral phenomenon and one of the most important personal variables that affects individual activities. And perhaps lots of individuals and nations achievements are due to the appropriate level of ambition in addition to other factors that participate in the development and achievement (Abd-Alfattah, 1990).

2.1.1. Theories on the Level of Ambition

2.1.1.1. Kurt Levin Theory

Is the first theory to explain the level of ambition and to deal with it directly, because of Levin and his students work in this domain, they explained that the procedural meaning of the ambition level depends on the nature of the task. Levin also referred to the ambition level as the level of future performance in familiar tasks that individual's experience. Levin identified several factors affecting the level of ambition:

1. Prior experience identifies level expected to be reached or not. If there is no prior knowledge the possibilities are not specified.
2. The aim of the activity. If the activity is determined by a high level, it is unlikely to reach the highest level of performance, but the opposite happens if the aim is not determined previously.
3. The group level. Individual's level of ambition is influenced by the group level, individuals ambition corresponds often with the group ambition.
4. Realism. If the individual is realistic then his expectations correspond with his future performance (Ali and Assaheb, 2010).

Abd-Alfattah (2007a) said that the level of ambition develops with growing up, in the presence of some variables as the encourage that follows success, while discouraging adds to failure experiences which leads to decreasing of the ambition level. Hence, the more mature the individual is the more he owns means of achieving his ambition, and the more he becomes able to think about means and ends to achieve it. Many studies indicated that average and individuals of low economic status families have a higher level of ambition compared with high economic status. An ambitious individual must have lots of qualities that enables him to behave more effective and to be able to face surrounding challenges and to set future goals that fits his abilities. So, self-efficacy is considered of the most important mechanisms of personal powers, it occupies an important position and an important tool to achieve individuals ambitions, it also represents the main factor of individuals success in various life fields (Ali and Assaheb, 2010).

2.1.1.2. Resultant Valence Theory

Escalona (cited in Abd-Alfattah (2007a)) indicated that the intrinsic value of success or the success volume is considered a result for the value itself and the success probabilities. Individuals set expectations within the boundaries of their ability. This theory tries to explain three facts as follows:

1. Individual's tendency to look for a relatively high level of ambition.
2. Individual's tendency to reach certain levels of ambition.
3. Individual's tendency to set the level of ambition near the easy and away from the difficult.

An overview on the previous literature on level of ambition presents Kurt Levin Theory as the first to explain the level of ambition directly and defined affecting factors, while the Resultant Valence Theory focused on success because of the existence of self-assertion motive.

2.2. Self–Efficacy

Is considered one of the most prominent concepts that occupy a position in identifying and explaining individuals powers that affect thinking styles and behaviors which in turn explains actions (Zawahrah, 2010).

Self-efficacy is represented by individual's self-conviction of having the ability to overcome problems and difficulties that he encounters during his life or career, and his ability to recognize and estimate the ability to do something in a certain way successfully (Ali, 2008). Social theorists believe that perceived self-efficacy represents a decisive component of individual sense of self-control and monitoring over own destiny and compatibility with life events, and the feeling of self-control and monitoring work on adjustment and reduces the level of psychological stress (Alwan, 2013).

Bandura (1993) cited Az-Ziq (2009) in defined perceived self-efficacy as individual’s beliefs about their abilities of organizing and implementing necessary procedures to achieve certain results, and individual’s abilities to produce certain levels of performance that affect their choices, actions and goals sought. Az-Zayat (2001) defined it as the individuals’ belief about his mental, emotional, knowledge, physical and psychological abilities and capacities to address problems and difficulties and to influence the events for achievement in surrounding existing determinants. Adler (cited in Alwan (2013)) pointed to the social variable in self-efficacy of the individual, through the ability of social attention , and considered it the only guarantee of human race survival and existence by thinking, morale, logic and aesthetics all of which happens only in communities. Individuals ability to confront social life demands and to hold characteristics of personal social care and respecting societies values, empathy, and modesty lead to better social relationships, at this point the role of efficacy in visioning values and standards and to establish social security, dignity preserving through belonging to others in mature and successful relationships.

The authors of the current study define it as self-assessment of individual image in terms of his abilities and perceptions that enables him to achieve the goal in the light of his ambition.

2.3. Bandura (1993) Identified Four Sources That Develop Individual's Self-Efficacy

First. Successful and mastered prior experience. The interpretation of these experiences plays a significant role in individual recognition of the level of his efficacy, successful experiences increase individual's perceived self-efficacy, while failure decreases it. Second. Knowledge acquiring by recognizing surrounding social models; to see someone similar performing a successful task may increase individuals perceived self-efficacy.

Third. Persuasion may be more effective when individuals are confident of their abilities; and helps to increase the performance level. Individuals may be encouraged to believe in themselves and to try doing the new.

Fourth. Emotional and psychological domain. The individual may be able to define the level of perceived self-efficacy according to what is he exposed to and it causes psychological pressure, anxiety and tiredness, and if their performance is good in these situations they start believing that they are able of success, but if they feel anxiety and fear it is possible to expect failure, and so self-efficacy is affected by individuals experiences.

3. LITERATURE REVIEW

3.1. On the Level of Ambition

Waxler (2002) explored the correlation between self-concept and ambition level among postgraduates (No. 453) in light of some variables. The students majoring in different subject’s results proved that there are no statistical differences between the self-concept and ambition level.

Ahmavaara and Houston (2007) identified factors affecting the ambition level on a sample of (856) students. They found significant differences due to gender. They also found that self-esteem is the most important factor that motivates students to have a high level of ambition.

Page et al. (2007) studied the relation between ambition levels and educational options. The sample included 120 students. It was found that there is a significant correlation between the ambition level and gender.

Barakat (2009) tried to recognize the correlation between self-concept and ambition level among Al-Quds university students based on gender, major, and academic achievement. The students (378) results the levels of self-concept and ambition level were moderate and positive.

Al-Banna (2010) studied the differences in ambition level according to education type and gender among Al-Aqsa University students in Gaza Stripe. Participants (No. 467) from all majors contributed to the study. The author utilized the scale of ambition level developed by Abd-Alfattah (1975). Significant differences were found between male and female students in favor of males. No significant differences in level of ambition overall scores are found. Where significant differences in tendency toward excellence, setting goals and plans among the students of literary and scientific majors due to education type in favor of literary majors.

Al-Marazeeq (2010) explored ambition level, self-efficacy and emotional intelligence as predictors of social adjustment among Jerash university students. Sample included (442) students. The author developed two tests to measure ambition level and self-efficacy. Student ambition level was found to be low.

Ali and Assaheb (2010) tried to identify thinking styles and their correlation with ambition level among female students majoring in kindergarten education in the college of basic education at the university of Mustansiriya. The test was administered on (115) students registered in morning classes from first and fourth years. Results proved that they have a high level of ambition, but there was no significant differences according the studying year.

Al-Jubouri (2013) aimed to recognize the future anxiety and its relation with self-efficacy and academic ambition and the tendency toward socialization among students of open education in the Arab Open Academy Denmark as a model. One hundred twenty students participated in the study and proved to have a high level of ambition.

3.2. On Perceived Self-Efficacy

Finn and Frone (2004) studied the relation between academic performance and self-efficacy and the effect of gender and age. The sample included (315) student. A statistical significant relation between age and gender and perceived self-efficacy is found in favor of females.

Assaqr (2005) explored the level of moral development and perceived self-efficacy and the correlation between them. From Yarmouk university (654) students participated in the study. Significant differences were found in perceived self-efficacy due to gender in favor of the male students, and due to major also.

Al-Mehsen (2006) studied the relationship between perceived self-efficacy level and achievement motivation, adjustment and achievement according to major, gender and academic level. From the faculty of education at Yarmouk university (154) students completed the tests of perceived self-efficacy and achievement motivation; results showed an averaged perceived self-efficacy level.

Nasasrah (2009) explored perceived self-efficacy correlation with test anxiety in light of demographical variables among high school students, and he identified the differences in the gender and educational level. Sample included (678) students. A negative significant correlation between perceived self-efficacy and test anxiety was found. No significant statistical differences between averages are found on self-efficacy due to gender and educational level.

Az-Ziq (2009) explored perceived self-efficacy among a sample of students (No. 400) in different levels at literary and scientific faculties in the University of Jordan. Results revealed an average level of ambition, significant differences were found in different academic levels it scored high in the fourth year and scored low at the beginning of the second year, but gender didn’t have a significant difference on perceived self-efficacy.

Alwan (2013) explored perceived self-efficacy on a random chosen sample of equal numbers of male and female students (No. 300) from Bagdad University, enrolled in literary and scientific majors. All students perceive their self-efficacy; significant differences appeared between genders and in favor of students of scientific majors.

Youssef (2013) explored social skills correlation with perceived self-efficacy and academic achievement among (260) students of various variables (gender, academic level and socioeconomic status of the family). A significant correlation is found between the study variables; in favor of males in perceived self-efficacy.

An overview on the previous literature on ambition level and perceived self-efficacy yielded: The results of the previous studies contradicted. Some studies revealed that the ambition level varies in gender as in Ahmavaara and Houston (2007) study, Al-Marazeeq (2010) study showed low levels of ambition, while Al-Mehsen (2006) proved averaged levels. Al-Banna (2010) attributed the differences in the ambition level to type of education favoring literary majors. Perceived self-efficacy variable differences were attributed to gender as in Assaqr (2005); Youssef (2013) and Finn and Frone (2004) studies. But gender had no effect on perceived self-efficacy in Az-Ziq (2009) study. The current study agrees with the study of Barakat (2009) indicating a positive correlation between self-concept and ambition level, and disagrees with the study of Waxler (2002). Based on the previous literature the authors developed a questionnaire to measure the ambition level and perceived self-efficacy among a sample of Jordanian universities students in light of certain variables.

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1. Participants

The overall population consisted of (32) universities academic year 2013/2014, of which three universities are selected (Yarmouk University, University of Science and Technology and Jerash university) total students enrolled in these universities is (66000). Seven hundred and ninety students were randomly chosen and recruited for this study. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the sample and repetitions and percentages according to the variables.

Table-1. Repetitions and percentages according to the study variables

variables	categories	repetition	percentage
gender	male	368	46.6
	female	422	53.4
faculty	scientific	416	52.7
	literary	374	47.3
academic year	1st	318	40.3
	2nd	212	26.8
	3rd	164	20.8
	4th	96	12.2
family income	less than 500 JD	240	30.4
	from 500-1000 JD	328	41.5
	more than 1000 JD	222	28.1
	total	790	100

4.2. Measures

The study employed two instruments.

First. Ambition level test. The authors reviewed previous literature on ambition level such as Abd-Alfattah (1975); Al-Jubouri (2013); Al-Marazeeq (2010) and Al-Banna (2010) and developed a test that included (39) items distributed on four variables.

Second. Perceived self-efficacy test. The test was developed by reviewing Alwan (2013); Al-Mehsen (2006); Assaqr (2005) and Az-Ziq (2009) to include four variables and (40) items.

Validity of the test was verified through;

4.3. Surface Validity

Thirteen professors majoring in curriculum and teaching methods, educational psychology and measurement and evaluation reviewed the initial version of the test. They provided comments on the test items, based on the comments, two items are excluded from the ambition level test. And some items are modified in perceived self-efficacy test, the total final number of level of ambition items were (39) and (40) items for perceived self-efficacy.

4.4. Construct Validity

Items internal consistency is verified by test-retest using a pilot sample of (100) students other than the participants of the study. Pearson correlation between scores in the test-retest is calculated on the overall test. Reliability coefficient of internal consistency is calculated by Cronbach Alpha. Table 2 and 3 provides internal consistency based on Cronbach Alpha and retest reliability of the variables and overall tests of ambition level and perceived self-efficacy.

Table-2. Cronbach Internal Consistency Coefficient and Retest Reliability Based on Test Variable and Overall Test of Ambition Level

Variable	Retest Reliability	Internal Consistency Coefficient
Assume responsibility and self-reliance	0.84	0.76
Identify the plan and goals	0.91	0.78
Tendency to struggle and superiority	0.86	0.8
Satisfaction and believing in luck	0.87	0.78
Overall level of ambition	0.89	0.87

Table-3. Cronbach Internal Consistency Coefficient and Retest Reliability Based on Test Variable and Overall Test of Perceived Self-Efficacy Level

Variable	Retest Reliability	Internal Consistency Coefficient
Emotional	0.91	0.75
Social	0.88	0.84
Cognitive and academic	0.9	0.83
Moral	0.87	0.84
Overall Perceived Self-Efficacy	0.89	0.91

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The study aimed at recognizing the level of ambition and perceived self-efficacy among a sample of Jordanian Universities  students in light of some variables by answering the following questions:

What is the ambition level among a sample of Jordan Universities  students?    

What is the perceived self-efficacy level among a sample of Jordan universities students?    

What is the correlation between ambition level and perceived self-efficacy among a sample of Jordan universities students?

Is there a functional significant difference at (α ≥ 0.05) in the ambition level due to the variables of the study among a sample of Jordan universities students?
Is there a functional significant difference at (α ≥ 0.05) in perceived self-efficacy level due to the variables of the study among a sample of Jordan universities students?

To answer the first question “What is the ambition level among a sample of Jordan universities students?” means and standard deviations of ambition level are calculated as shown in table 4.

Table-4. Means and standard deviations of ambition level in a descendant order.

Item order	Item No.	Variable	Mean	SD	Level
1	3	Tendency to struggle and superiority	4.31	0.479	High
2	1	Assume responsibility and self-reliance	4.09	0.493	High
3	2	Identify the plan and goals	4.07	0.495	High
4	4	Satisfaction and believing in luck	3.65	0.618	Medium
		Overall Level of ambition	4.04	0.388	High

From table 4 we notice that means ranged (3.65 – 4.31). Tendency to struggle and superiority scored first and a mean of (4.31), this is attributed to the nature of the age group; students recognize the importance of the perseverance and effort to achieve excellence in future. Satisfaction and believing in luck scored low scores and a mean of (3.65), this result may be attributed to the fact that ambitious individuals are not completely satisfied when they reach the highest point of ambition, they renew ambition for more satisfaction in addition to the belief that luck doesn’t play a role in future but hard work and does. Overall mean of the ambition level scored (4.04), this refers to a high level of ambition corresponding with the results of Ali and Assaheb (2010) and Al-Jubouri (2013) and contradicts with Al-Marazeeq (2010).

To answer the second question “What is the perceived self-efficacy level among a sample of Jordan universities students?” means and standard deviations of perceived self-efficacy level are calculated as shown in table 5.

Table-5. Means and standard deviations of perceived self-efficacy level in a descendant order

Item N.	Itemorder	Variable	Mean	SD	Level
1	4	Moral	4.31	0.534	High
2	2	Social	4.22	0.564	High
3	3	Cognitive and academic	3.9	0.573	High
4	1	Emotional	3.79	0.609	High
		Overall Perceived Self-Efficacy	4.05	0.451	High

It is noticed in table 5 that means ranged (3.79 – 4.31). moral variable scored first and a mean of (4.31), this may be attributed to the students perception that morals are one of the most important pillars and foundations of human life system. Emotional variable scored low scores mean (3.79), although it scored lowest scores but still it is considered a high score, this is attributed to the fact that emotions helps individuals to organize experiences because they guide behavior to achieving goals and influence relations with others. Overall mean of the perceived self-efficacy scored (4.05), this refers to a high level of perceived self-efficacy corresponding with the results of Alwan (2013) study and contradicts with Al-Mehsen (2006) study.

To answer the third question “What is the correlation between ambition level and perceived self-efficacy among a sample of Jordan universities students?” Pearson coefficient correlation between the level of ambition and perceived self-efficacy is calculated as shown in table 6.

Table-6. Pearson coefficient correlation between the level of ambition and perceived self-efficacy

Variable		Emotional	Social	Cognitive and academic	Moral	Overall Perceived Self-Efficacy
Assume responsibility and self-reliance	Pearson coefficient of correlation (r)	.378**	.402**	.449**	.437**	.527**
	Statistical significance	0	0	0	0	0
	No.	790	790	790	790	790
Identify the plan and goals	Pearson coefficient of correlation (r)	.396**	.576**	.525**	.448**	.619**
	Statistical significance	0	0	0	0	0
	No.	790	790	790	790	790
Tendency to struggle and superiority	Pearson coefficient of correlation (r)	.343**	.501**	.487**	.506**	.580**
	Statistical significance	0	0	0	0	0
	No.	790	790	790	790	790
Satisfaction and believing in luck	Pearson coefficient of correlation (r)	.327**	.272**	.313**	.110*	.331**
	Statistical significance	0	0	0	0.029	0
	No.	790	790	790	790	790
Ambition level	Pearson coefficient of correlation (r)	.482**	.583**	.590**	.490**	.682**
	Statistical significance	0	0	0	0	0
	No.	790	790	790	790	790

* Significance at (0.05)

** Significance at (0.01)

It is noticed in table 6 that there is a positive statistically significant correlation between the ambition level and perceived self-efficacy in all the variables and in overall scores. This may be attributed to the ambition levels contribution in enhancing perceived self-efficacy to achieve ambitions and planned goals by perseverance, self-reliance, and taking responsibility, and not to rely on luck. Knowing the limits of individual’s abilities, their potentials and efficacy motivated them to meet their ambitions. Both of ambition level and perceived self-efficacy are important and complement each other in achieving plans and goals this result agrees with Al-Jubouri (2013) and contradicts with Al-Marazeeq (2010).

To answer the fourth question “Is there a functional significant difference at (α ≥ 0.05) in the ambition level due to the variables of the study among a sample of Jordan universities students?” means and standard deviations of ambition level based on gender, faculty, academic year and family income are calculated in table 7.

Table-7. Means and standard deviations of ambition level based on gender, faculty, academic year and family income

	Gender		Assume responsibility and self-reliance	Identify the plan and goals	Tendency to struggle and superiority	Satisfaction and believing in luck	Level of ambition
Gender	Male	Mean	4.10	4.05	4.28	3.66	4.03
		SD	0.520	0.531	0.475	0.643	0.408
	Female	Mean	4.09	4.08	4.33	3.63	4.04
		SD	0.470	0.462	0.482	0.597	0.371
Faculty	Scientific	Mean	4.12	4.07	4.35	3.56	4.03
		SD	0.507	0.521	0.448	0.588	0.384
	Literary	Mean	4.06	4.06	4.27	3.75	4.04
		SD	0.477	0.465	0.509	0.638	0.393
Academic year	1st	Mean	4.14	4.08	4.36	3.53	4.04
		SD	0.486	0.484	0.430	0.601	0.365
	2nd	Mean	4.06	4.03	4.30	3.72	4.04
		SD	0.518	0.541	0.536	0.611	0.450
	3rd	Mean	4.07	4.04	4.26	3.75	4.04
		SD	0.469	0.489	0.480	0.650	0.375
	4th	Mean	4.03	4.14	4.23	3.69	4.03
		SD	0.499	0.435	0.491	0.588	0.348
Family income	Less than 500 JD	Mean	4.01	4.09	4.36	3.75	4.06
		SD	0.527	0.485	0.469	0.563	0.361
	From 500-1000 JD	Mean	4.14	4.04	4.35	3.62	4.04
		SD	0.470	0.463	0.446	0.573	0.360
	More than 1000 JD	Mean	4.10	4.09	4.20	3.57	4.00
		SD	0.482	0.550	0.520	0.722	0.452

In table 7 we notice an apparent variation in means and standard deviations of ambition level according to gender, faculty, academic year and family income. To show significance statistical functions between the means MANOVA analysis is conducted for each variable and overall test as shown in table 8.

Table-8. MANOVA analysis for each variable and ambition level overall test

Source of variance	Variable	Sums of Squares	Degrees of freedom	Mean squares	Value F	Sig.
Gender	Assume responsibility and self-reliance	0.018	1	0.018	0.076	0.783
Hotelling's Trace=.008	Identify the plan and go	0.163	1	0.163	0.661	0.417
0.559	Tendency to struggle and superiority	0.006	1	0.006	0.028	0.866
	Satisfaction and believing in luck	0.208	1	0.208	0.565	0.453
Faculty	Assume responsibility and self-reliance	0.008	1	0.008	0.034	0.853
Hotelling's Trace=.017	Identify the plan and go	0.027	1	0.027	0.108	0.743
0.156	Tendency to struggle and superiority	0.345	1	0.345	1.531	0.217
	Satisfaction and believing in luck	1.262	1	1.262	3.42	0.065
Academic year	Assume responsibility and self-reliance	0.699	3	0.233	0.961	0.411
Hotelling's Trace=.947	Identify the plan and go	0.535	3	0.178	0.723	0.539
0.052	Tendency to struggle and superiority	0.449	3	0.15	0.664	0.575
	Satisfaction and believing in luck	2.656	3	0.885	2.401	0.067
Family income	Assume responsibility and self-reliance	1.094	2	0.547	2.255	0.106
Hotelling's Trace=.906	Identify the plan and go	0.345	2	0.172	0.699	0.498
0.000	Tendency to struggle and superiority	1.634	2	0.817	3.625	0.028
	Satisfaction and believing in luck	1.975	2	0.988	2.678	0.07
Error	Assume responsibility and self-reliance	93.853	387	0.243
	Identify the plan and go	95.506	387	0.247
	Tendency to struggle and superiority	87.213	387	0.225
	Satisfaction and believing in luck	142.748	387	0.369
Overall	Assume responsibility and self-reliance	95.855	394
	Identify the plan and go	96.451	394
	Tendency to struggle and superiority	90.334	394
	Satisfaction and believing in luck	150.676	394

In table 8 we notice that the significant differences are not statistical at (α ≥ 0.05) based on gender, faculty and academic year in all ambition variables, this may be attributed to interest and pursuit of the sample to achieve their goals through perseverance and determination. This result agrees with Ali and Assaheb (2010) study and contradicts with Al-Banna (2010).

No significant differences were found at (α ≥ 0.05) attributed to family income in all ambition variables except for “Tendency to struggle and superiority”, which may be attributed to high income families providing the student with facilities and possibilities compared with low income families whose children strive for his needs. Table 9 below shows MANOVA analysis for each variable and overall test of ambition level.

Table-9. MANOVA analysis for each variable and ambition level overall test

Source of variance	Sum of Squares	Degree of freedom	Means squared	Value F	Sig.
Gender	0.00005	1	0.00005	0.001	0.995
Faculty	0.002	1	0.002	0.011	0.915
Academic year	0.003	3	0.001	0.007	0.999
Family income	0.246	2	0.123	0.807	0.447
Error	59.088	387	0.153
Overall	59.367	394

From table 9 we notice:

Statistical differences at (α ≥ 0.05) based on gender are not functional, F scored (0.0001) and a significant of (.995) this is attributed that both males and females are highly ambitious, this result contradicts with Ahmavaara and Houston (2007) and Al-Banna (2010) studies.

Statistical differences at (α ≥ 0.05) based on faculty are not functional, F scored (0.011) and a significant of (.915) this is attributed to the learning environment and education method in different faculties, this result is consistent with Al-Banna (2010) study.

Statistical differences at (α ≥ 0.05) based on academic year are not functional, F scored (0.007) and a significant of (.99) this is attributed to the fact that students at this age are still in the motivation stage and seek to graduate from the university which is their goal in this stage. This result agrees with Ali and Assaheb (2010) study, but contradicts with Al-Banna (2010) study.

Statistical differences at (α ≥ 0.05) based on family income are not functional, F scored (0.807) and a significant of (.447) this is attributed to the students pursue to achieve their goals and overcome obstacles regardless of their families income, because they believe better future is achieved by ambition, challenging, persistence and perseverance.

To answer the fifth question “Is there a functional significant difference at (α ≥ 0.05) in perceived self-efficacy level due to the variables of the study among a sample of Jordan universities students?” means and standard deviations of perceived self-efficacy based on gender, faculty, academic year and family income are calculated in table 10.

Table-10. Means and standard deviations of perceived self-efficacy based on gender, faculty, academic year and family income

	Gender		Emotional	Social	Cognitive and academic	Moral	Overall perceived self-efficacy
Gender	Male	Mean	3.85	4.17	3.95	4.22	4.05
		SD	.639	.574	.591	.586	.484
	Female	Mean	3.75	4.26	3.86	4.39	4.06
		SD	.578	.553	.556	.472	.421
Faculty	Scientific	Mean	3.70	4.23	3.91	4.34	4.04
		SD	.610	.539	.572	.478	.438
	Literary	Mean	3.90	4.20	3.90	4.28	4.06
		SD	.592	.591	.576	.590	.465
Academic year	1st	Mean	3.81	4.26	3.93	4.33	4.08
		SD	.559	.534	.525	.456	.406
	2nd	Mean	3.75	4.14	3.90	4.35	4.03
		SD	.688	.653	.572	.574	.516
	3rd	Mean	3.80	4.22	3.88	4.21	4.03
		SD	.584	.467	.625	.595	.410
	4th	Mean	3.84	4.23	3.84	4.33	4.05
		SD	.635	.595	.648	.567	.509
Family income	Less than 500 JD	Mean	3.89	4.28	3.95	4.35	4.11
		SD	.596	.500	.580	.541	.449
	From 500-1000 JD	Mean	3.73	4.26	3.89	4.36	4.05
		SD	.606	.558	.594	.541	.427
	More than 1000 JD	Mean	3.79	4.10	3.87	4.21	3.99
		SD	.617	.622	.536	.504	.482

In table 10 we notice an apparent variation in means and standard deviations of perceived self-efficacy according to gender, faculty, academic year and family income. To show significance statistical functions between the means MANOVA analysis is conducted for each variable and overall test as shown in table 11.

Table-11. MANOVA analysis for each variable and overall test of perceived self-efficacy

Source of variance	Variable	Sum of Squares	Degree of freedom	Means squared	Value F	Sig.
Gender	Emotional	1.077	1	1.077	3	0.084
Hotelling's Trace=.062	Social	0.149	1	0.149	0.475	0.491
P= .000	Cognitive and academic	1.17	1	1.17	3.545	0.06
	Moral	1.95	1	1.95	7.04	0.008
Faculty	Emotional	3.17	1	3.17	8.826	0.003
Hotelling's Trace=.045	Social	0.046	1	0.046	0.145	0.703
P= 0.002	Cognitive and academic	0.009	1	0.009	0.027	0.869
	Moral	0.244	1	0.244	0.879	0.349
Academic year	Emotional	1.041	3	0.347	0.967	0.409
Wilks' Lambda=.958	Social	0.933	3	0.311	0.988	0.399
0.174	Cognitive and academic	0.262	3	0.087	0.265	0.851
	Moral	1.388	3	0.463	1.671	0.173
Family income	Emotional	1.365	2	0.682	1.9	0.151
Wilks' Lambda=.906	Social	1.753	2	0.877	2.786	0.063
P=0.000	Cognitive and academic	0.645	2	0.322	0.977	0.378
	Moral	0.936	2	0.468	1.69	0.186
Error	Emotional	138.984	387	0.359
	Social	121.794	387	0.315
	Cognitive and academic	127.756	387	0.33
	Moral	107.196	387	0.277
Overall	Emotional	145.912	394
	Social	125.196	394
	Cognitive and academic	129.584	394
	Moral	112.308	394

Statistical differences at (α ≥ 0.05) based on gender are not functional in all variables, except for the moral variable favoring females, this may be attributed to females being more committed in morals aspects apparent in the traditions, customs and culture of the society, through socialization methods that forces the female to respect others views even if she disagrees with them, because females consider morals as basic standards upon which society evaluates them. This result consist Nasasrah (2009) and Az-Ziq (2009) and contradicts with Alwan (2013) and Finn and Frone (2004).

Statistical differences at (α ≥ 0.05) based on faculty are not functional in all the variables except for emotional variable favoring literary faculties, this may be attributed to courses flexibility taught in these faculties, this result is consistent with Alwan (2013) and Assaqr (2005).

Statistical differences at (α ≥ 0.05) based on academic year are not functional in all the variables. This result agrees with Nasasrah (2009) study, but contradicts with Az-Ziq (2009) study. In family income it contradicts with Youssef (2013) study, this may be attributed to students seeking to achieve goals through the abilities and capabilities they own and allows them to reach future. Table 12 below shows a MANOVA analysis of perceived self-efficacy variables and overall test.

Table-12. MANOVA analysis for each variable and perceived self-efficacy overall test

Source of variance	Sum of Squares	Degree of freedom	Means squared	Value F	Sig.
Gender	0.015	1	0.015	0.075	0.79
Faculty	0.046	1	0.046	0.228	0.63
Academic year	0.271	3	0.09	0.444	0.72
Family income	0.787	2	0.394	1.931	0.15
Error	78.904	387	0.204
Overall	80.068	394

From table 12 we notice:

Statistical differences at (α ≥ 0.05) based on gender are not functional, F scored (0.075) and a significant of (.785) this may be attributed that both males and females are highly ambitious, this result contradicts with Alwan (2013) and Youssef (2013) studies and consist with Nasasrah (2009) and Az-Ziq (2009).

Statistical differences at (α ≥ 0.05) based on faculty are not functional, F scored (0.228) and a significant of (.634) this may be attributed to the learning environment and education method in different faculties, this result is consistent with Assaqr (2005) study and contradict with Alwan (2013).

Statistical differences at (α ≥ 0.05) based on academic year are not functional, F scored (0.444) and a significant of (.722) this may be attributed to the fact that perceived self-efficacy motivates students to acquire knowledge and experience of the university which makes them feel confident and able to achieve goals. This result agrees with Nasasrah (2009) study and contradicts with Az-Ziq (2009) study.

Statistical differences at (α ≥ 0.05) based on family income are not functional, F scored (1.931) and a significant of (0.146) this may be attributed to the students feeling of struggle in order to excel. This result contradicts with what Youssef (2013) found.

5.1. Implications

In light of the results the authors suggest providing appropriate environment in educational institutions to develop ambition level and perceived self-efficacy among students. The gap still exists in the literature review of local and Arab studies treating ambition level and perceived self-efficacy, so more studies are required to fill this gap which may agree or disagree with the current findings.

REFERENCES

Abd-Alfattah, C., 1975. Adults ambition level questionnaire. 2nd Edn., Cairo: Dar al-Nahda.

Abd-Alfattah, C., 1990. Psychological studies in ambition level and personality. Cairo: Nahdat Misr.

Abd-Alfattah, C., 2007a. Ambition level and personality. Beirut: Arab Renaissance Publishing House Printing and Publishing.

Abd-Alfattah, C., 2007b. Ambition level and personality. Riyadh: Dar al-Zahra.

Ahmavaara, A. and D.M. Houston, 2007. The effects of selective schooling and self-concept on adolescents academic aspiration: An examination of Dweck's self-theory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3): 613-632. DOI 10.1348/000709906X120132.

Al-Banna, A.H., 1998. A study of some psychological and social variables among outstanding and backward achievement students among palestanian and egyption postgraduats. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. A-Zaqazeeq University, Eygpt.

Al-Banna, A.H., 2010. Differences in the ambition level in light of educational type and gender among the students of Al-Aqsa University in Gaza strip. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Al-Aqsa University, Gaza, Palestine.

Al-Jubouri, M.A., 2013. Future anxiety and its relation with self-efficacy and academic ambition and tendency toward socialization of students of open education- Arab open academy in Denmark as an example. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Arab Open Academy, Denmark.

Al-Marazeeq, E.A.M., 2010. The level of ambition, self-efficacy and social intelligence as predictors of social adjustment among Jerash university students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Yarmouk University, Jordan.

Al-Mehsen, S.A., 2006. Perceived self-efficacy relationship with achievement motivation, adjustment and achievement among a sample of faculty of education at Yarmouk university. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Yarmouk University, Jordan.

Al-Owaidah, M.B.S., 2009. Eating disorder correlation with self-image, anxiety and self-efficacy. Jordan Journal of Social Sciences, 2(2): 256-276.

Ali, B.H. and W.E. Assaheb, 2010. Thinking styles and its relation with ambition level among students majoring in Kindergarten education. Iraq Journal of Basic Education, 63: 279-330.

Ali, T.A.H., 2008. The effectiveness of a pilot program based on perceived self-efficacy and its impact on psychological stress and achievement motivation among teachers in private sectors as perceived by students. Scientific Journal of Education Faculty, 24(2): 841-850.

Alwan, S., 2013. Perceived self-efficacy among Baghdad university students. Educational and Psychological Research Journal, 33: 224-242.

Assaqr, T.M., 2005. The level of moral development and perceived self-efficacy among a sample of Yarmouk university students in the light of some variables. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Yarmouk University, Jordan.

Az-Zayat, F.M., 2001. Cognitive psychology (Part 2): Introductions, models and theories. 1st Edn., Egypt: University Publishing.

Az-Ziq, A.Y., 2009. Academic perceived self-efficacy among the students at Jordan university based on gender, faculty, academic level. Educational and Psychological Research Journal, 10(2): 37-58.

Bandura, A., 1993. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2): 117-148.

Barakat, Z., 2009. The relation of self-concept and ambition level among Al-Quds open university based on some variables. Palestinian Journal of Open and Distance Education, 1(2): 221-225.

Finn, K.V. and M.R. Frone, 2004. Academic performance and cheating: Moderating role of school identification and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Research, 97(3): 115-122.

Merhab, S.A., 1989. The psychology of psychological adjustment and ambition level. A comparative study between male and female adolescents in Morocco. Rabat: Dar Alaman Publishing.

Nasasrah, F.S., 2009. Perceived self-efficacy and its relation with examination anxiety in light of demographical variables among high school students in Be'er Sheva. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Yarmouk University, Jordan.

Page, L., G.L. Levy and C. Montmarquette, 2007. Aspiration levels and educational choices: An experimental study. Economics of Education Review, 26(6): 747-757.

Salamah, A.F., 2007. Parental deprivation and its impact on academic achievement, self-esteem and ambition level in Galilee region. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Yarmouk University, Jordan.

Shubeir, T.M., 2005. The level of ambition and its relationship of some variables in the light of dominant culture among islamic students ofٍ the university. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza.

Waxler, M., 2002. A comparative study of the self–concept and aspiration. Journal of Educational Research, 18(3): 192-196.

Youssef, R.M., 2013. Social skills and its relation with perceived self-efficacy and general academic achievement among a sample of middle school students at Hail in Saudi Arabia in light of some variables. Islamic University for Educational and Psychological Studies Journal, 21(1): 327-365.

Zawahrah, M.K., 2010. Effectiveness of using an interactive learning program on achievement motivation and perceived self-efficacy among elementary students in Jordan. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Cairo University, Cairo.