Manipulated performance-approach (vs. avoidance) goals increase preference for a self-confirmatory model over a compliant one with a more-competent partner (Study 2)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i2–i3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 The Goals × Partner Competence interaction on the model-preference difference score was significant when goals were experimentally induced. → Sommet 2015 q3 i3 With a higher-competence partner, performance-approach instructions predicted more preference for the confirmation model over the compliance model than performance-avoidance instructions; with an equal partner the difference was not significant. → Sommet 2015 (2)

Evidence¶

Sommet 2015¶

Sommet, N., Darnon, C., & Butera, F. (2015). To Confirm or to Conform? Performance Goals as a Regulator of Conflict With More-Competent Others. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 580–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037240

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Paper-and-pencil experiment with 73 French vocational school students (3 outliers dropped) randomly given performance-approach or performance-avoidance instructions. The regression interaction on the model-preference score showed "β =.28, F(1, 66) =5.60, p <.03, ηp2 =.08".

"As expected, the predicted inter- action between goals and partner’s competence was significant, /H9252/H11005.28, F(1, 66) /H110055.60, p /H11021.03, /H9257p2 /H11005.08."

Sommet 2015 (2)¶

Sommet, N., Darnon, C., & Butera, F. (2015). To Confirm or to Conform? Performance Goals as a Regulator of Conflict With More-Competent Others. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 580–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037240

q3 · i3 · causal · r?

Simple-slope analyses of the Study 2 regression. The higher-competence slope was "β =.39, F(1, 66) =4.90, p <.03, ηp2 =.07"; the equal-competence slope was not significant (p =.28).

"In comparison to performance-avoidance goals, performance-approach goals pre- dicted more preference for the “confirmation model” over the “compliance model” (i.e., a more positive difference score) when the partner’s competence was higher, /H9252/H11005.39, F(1, 66) /H110054.90, p /H11021.03, /H9257p2 /H11005.07, than when it was equal"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Achievement Goal Orientation — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• With explicit or unspecified superior partner competence, performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals predict competitive and protective regulation respectively (Study 3) — related
• Manipulated performance-approach (vs. avoidance) goals increase preference for a self-confirmatory model over a compliant one with a more-competent partner (Study 2) — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Performance goals regulate conflict with more-competent others toward competitive (approach) or protective (avoidance) interpersonal behavior — a broader claim this one bears on
• Performance-avoidance goals predict protective conflict regulation with a more-competent disagreeing partner, but not an equally competent one (Study 1) — related
• Performance-approach goals predict competitive conflict regulation with a more-competent disagreeing partner, but not an equally competent one (Study 1) — related
• Experimentally induced mastery goals predicted interest in social comparison only under a performance-approach goal condition — related