Céline Darnon

Achievement Goal Promotion at University: Social Desirability and Social Utility of Mastery and Performance Goals

The present research examines the ambivalence of achievement goal promotion at university, and more specifically in the psychology curriculum. On the one hand, psychology teachers explicitly encourage mastery but not performance (neither approach nor avoidance) goals. On the other hand, the selection process encourages the endorsement of not only mastery but also performance-approach goals. In fact, it would seem that both performance-approach and mastery goals are valued in a university context. Two pilot studies verified the above assumptions. Subsequently, Experiments 1, 2, and 3 showed that each of these goals corresponds to different aspects of social value. Indeed, high endorsement of mastery goals was associated with being judged as both likable (social desirability) and likely to succeed (social utility). High endorsement of performance-approach goals enhanced social utility judgments but reduced perceived likability. Performance-avoidance goals only enhanced perceived likability. The discussion focuses on the 2 functions of university, namely education (apparent in the official discourse of teachers) and selection (apparent in the university structure), and on the perceived value of achievement goals.

Mastery and performance goals predict epistemic and relational conflict regulation

The present research examines whether mastery and performance goals predict different ways of reacting to a sociocognitive conflict with another person over materials to be learned, an issue not yet addressed by the achievement goal literature. Results from 2 studies showed that mastery goals predicted epistemic conflict regulation (a conflict regulation strategy focused on the attempt to integrate both points of view), whereas performance goals predicted relational conflict regulation (a conflict regulation strategy focused on the evaluation and affirmation of self-competence). Study 1 shows these links via direct self-report measures of conflict regulation. Study 2 shows the same links using the amount of competence reported for the self and for the other as subtle measures of conflict regulation.

Performance-Approach and Performance-Avoidance Goals: When Uncertainty Makes a Difference

Performance-avoidance goals (the desire to avoid performing more poorly than others do) have been shown to have consistently deleterious effects on performance but the effects of performance-approach goals (trying to outperform others) are more complex. Two studies examine uncertainty as a moderator of the effect of performance-approach goals on performance. Experiment 1 shows that manipulated performance-approach goals lead to better performance than do performance-avoidance goals in the absence of uncertainty about performance but when participants learn that a coactor disagreed with them about problem solutions, creating uncertainty, performance-approach goals do not differ from performance-avoidance goals in their effect on performance. Experiment 2 shows that uncertainty also moderates the effects of self-set performance-approach goals. Moreover, the same dynamic occurs with another kind of uncertainty: negative competence feedback.

Toward a More Social Understanding of Achievement Goals The Interpersonal Effects of Mastery and Performance Goals

The current article presents an overview of recent research into social outcomes that accompany the pursuit of achievement goals. On the basis of investigations in various subdisciplines of psychology, we conclude that mastery goals—striving to improve one’s own performance—lead to investments in exchange relationships, endorsement of reciprocity norms, and active efforts to integrate different opinions. In contrast, performance goals—striving to outperform others—may result in rather maladaptive social behaviors. We point to three promising avenues for future research: Social consequences of achievement goals could be studied from a multiple-goal perspective, different levels of analysis should be taken into account, and the role of status differences should be examined.

Conflict Elaboration and Cognitive Outcomes

This article presents advice for teachers about using sociocognitive conflicts to promote academic learning. In doing so, the conditions under which sociocognitive conflicts are constructive or disruptive are examined and the relevant research is reviewed on social development, cooperative learning, and social influence. Two types of conflict elaboration—epistemic and relational—are identified. Epistemic elaborations focus students on task resolution leading to positive cognitive outcomes, and correspond to a cooperative relationship. Relational elaborations focus students on competence differentials and lead either to compliance or to competitive confrontations. Implications for education are discussed.

Faking the Desire to Learn: A Clarification of the Link Between Mastery Goals and Academic Achievement

Research on achievement goals has demonstrated that mastery goals positively impact achievement-related outcomes, but paradoxically hold an inconsistent relation with academic achievement. We hypothesized that this relationship depends on the reason why students endorse mastery goals—namely, to garner teachers appreciation (social desirability) or to succeed at university (social utility). First-year psychology students completed a mastery-goal scale in a standard format, with social-desirability instructions and social-utility instructions. Participants grades on academic exams were recorded later in the semester. Results indicated that students perceptions of both social desirability and social utility related to mastery goals moderated the relationship between the endorsement of mastery goals and final grades. This relationship was reduced by the increase of perceived social desirability of mastery goals, and strengthened by the increase of perceived social utility of these goals.

Dealing with a Disagreeing Partner: Relational and Epistemic Conflict Elaboration.

This experiment examined the effects of epistemic vs. relational conflicts on the relationship with a partner. Students participated to a fictitious computer-mediated interaction about a text with a bogus partner who introduced either an epistemic conflict (a conflict that referred to the content of the text), or a relational conflict (a conflict that questioned participants’ competence). Results indicated that compared to the epistemic conflict, the relational conflict enhanced threat and reduced the perceived contribution of the partner. Moreover, after a relational conflict, participants were more assertive in their answers, justified them to a lower extent, and expressed less doubt than after an epistemic conflict. Results also indicated that the intensity of disagreement predicted different modes of regulation depending on the conflict type. Finally, epistemic conflict elicited better learning than relational conflict.RésuméLa présente expérience a examiné les effets de conflits épistémiques vs. relationnels avec un partenaire. Des étudiants étaient amenés à participer à une pseudo-interaction médiatisée par ordinateur avec un partenaire factice, à propos d’un texte. Ce partenaire factice introduisait soit un conflit épistémique (un conflit se référant au contenu du texte) soit un conflit relationnel (un conflit qui mettait en cause la compétence des participants). Les résultats ont indiqué que comparativement au conflit épistémique, le conflit relationnel a augmenté la menace et réduit la contribution perçue du partenaire. De plus, après un conflit relationnel, les participants se sont montrés plus assertifs dans leurs réponses, les ont moins justifiées et ont exprimé moins de doutes qu’après un conflit épistémique. Les résultats indiquent également que l’intensité des désaccords prédit différents modes de régulation en fonction du type de conflit. Enfin, le conflit épistémique a entrainé un meilleur apprentissage que le conflit relationnel.

Too complex for me! Why do performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals predict exam performance?

Classroom research on achievement goals has revealed that performance-approach goals (goals to outperform others) positively predict exam performance whereas performance-avoidance goals (goals not to perform more poorly than others) negatively predict it. Because prior classroom research has primarily utilized multiple-choice exam performance, the first aim of the present study was to extend these findings to a different measure of exam performance (oral examination). The second aim of this research was to test the mediating role of perceived difficulty. Participants were 49 4th year psychology students of the University of Geneva. Participants answered a questionnaire assessing their level of performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal endorsement in one of their classes as well as the perceived difficulty of this class for themselves. Results indicated that performance-approach goals significantly and positively predicted exam grades. Performance-avoidance goals significantly and negatively predicted grades. Both of these relationships were mediated by the perceived difficulty of the class for oneself. Thus, the links previously observed between performance goals and exam performance were replicated on an oral exam. Perceived difficulty is discussed as a key dimension responsible for these findings.RésuméLes recherches sur les buts d’accomplissement ont montré que les buts de performance-approche (réussir mieux que les autres) prédisent positivement la performance alors que les buts de performanceévitement (ne pas réussir moins bien que les autres) la prédisent négativement. Celles-ci ayant principalement utilisé des examens à choix multiples, le premier objectif de la présente étude était d’étendre ces résultats à une mesure différente de performance (examen oral). Le second objectif de cette recherche était de tester le rôle médiateur de la difficulté perçue. Les participants étaient 49 étudiants de 4ème année de psychologie de l’Université de Genève. Les participants ont répondu à un questionnaire mesurant leur niveau de buts de performance-approche et performance-évitement dans l’une de leur classe, ainsi que leur perception du niveau de difficulté de cette classe. Les résultats indiquent que les buts de performance-approche prédisent de manière significative et positive la note obtenue à l’examen. Les buts de performance-évitement la prédisent négativement. Ces deux relations sont médiatisées par la difficulté perçue de la tache pour soi. Ainsi, les liens obtenus au préalable entre buts de performance et performance à l’examen sont répliqués sur un examen oral. La difficulté perçue est discutée comme la dimension clé responsable de ces liens.

Reducing the Socio-Economic Status Achievement Gap at University by Promoting Mastery-Oriented Assessment

In spite of official intentions to reduce inequalities at University, students’ socio-economic status (SES) is still a major determinant of academic success. The literature on the dual function of University suggests that University serves not only an educational function (i.e., to improve students’ learning), but also a selection function (i.e., to compare people, and orient them towards different positions in society). Because current assessment practices focus on the selection more than on the educational function, their characteristics fit better with norms and values shared by dominant high-status groups and may favour high-SES students over low-SES students in terms of performances. A focus on the educational function (i.e., mastery goals), instead, may support low-SES students’ achievement, but empirical evidence is currently lacking. The present research set out to provide such evidence and tested, in two field studies and a randomised field experiment, the hypothesis that focusing on University’s educational function rather than on its selection function may reduce the SES achievement gap. Results showed that a focus on learning, mastery-oriented goals in the assessment process reduced the SES achievement gap at University. For the first time, empirical data support the idea that low-SES students can perform as well as high-SES students if they are led to understand assessment as part of the learning process, a way to reach mastery goals, rather than as a way to compare students to each other and select the best of them, resulting in performance goals. This research thus provides a theoretical framework to understand the differential effects of assessment on the achievement of high and low-SES students, and paves the way toward the implementation of novel, theory-driven interventions to reduce the SES-based achievement gap at University.

Learning or succeeding? Conflict regulation with mastery or performance goals

The present study aimed to integrate research on mastery and performance goals into research on sociocognitive conflict (confrontation involving divergent points of view). Participants interacted by discussing conflictual issues in a context enhancing either performance goals, mastery goals, or no goals. The amount of disagreement during the interaction was measured. Results indicated that disagreement predicted epistemic conflict regulation (focused on task comprehension) in the mastery goals condition, but relational conflict regulation (focused on affirmation of competence) in the performance goals condition. Results are discussed in terms of their contribution to the conflict regulation framework.