Coping with Achievement Related Failure

Coping with Achievement-Related Failure: An Examination of Conversations Between Friends: 

Coping with Achievement-Related Failure: An Examination of Conversations Between Friends Ellen Rydell Altermatt, Elizabeth Broady, & Taryn Bellgard Hanover College Funded by National Science Foundation Grant BCS-0236678

Responses to Achievement-Related Failure: 

Responses to Achievement-Related Failure Mastery-oriented approach (Dweck, 1986) Maintain high expectations for future success Report positive affect Demonstrate persistence in the face of challenge Learned helpless approach (Dweck, 1986) Have diminished expectations for future success Report negative affect Fail to persist in the face of challenge

What Role Do Social Interactions Play?: 

What Role Do Social Interactions Play? Hokoda and Fincham (1995) Mothers of mastery-oriented children were more likely to offer assistance when their children requested it. Mothers of mastery-oriented children were less likely to respond to self-critical statements (e.g., “I can’t do it.”) by suggesting that their children discontinue the activity.

Why Friends?: 

Why Friends? Children spend a substantial amount of time with friends (e.g., Larson & Richards, 1991) Children seek the support and advice of friends during times of stress (e.g., Causey & Dubow, 1992)

Research Questions: 

Research Questions What are the features of children’s conversations with friends following achievement-related failure? Are the features of children’s conversations related to changes in their responses to failure over time?

Participants: 

Participants Fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students 116 friendship dyads 40 male dyads, 76 female dyads 70% Caucasian, 14% African-American, 7% Latino

Procedure: 

Procedure Ice-breaker activity Children worked on puzzles in separate rooms Focal child received unsolvable puzzles Friend received either solvable (success condition) or unsolvable puzzles (failure condition) Children were reunited to discuss the task Children work on a final set of solvable problems

Questionnaires: 

Questionnaires Mastery-Orientated Beliefs Baseline, Post-Failure, Post-discussion Sample Items “I want to do the puzzles.” “I am confident that I will do well on the puzzles.” Reliability: αs = .81 to .91

Coding Children’s Conversations: 

Coding Children’s Conversations Overview 17,000 statements (κs = .71 to .99) 8,441 focal child statements 8,559 friend statements 75% of statements were on-task

Statement Types: 

Statement Types Performance Checks (e.g., How many [puzzles] did you solve?) Positive Performance Statements (e.g., I got them all.) Negative Performance Statements (e.g., I didn’t get any of mine.) Positive Self-Evaluative Statements (e.g. I’m really good at puzzles.) Negative Self-Evaluative Statements (e.g., I stink at puzzles.) Discounting Statements (e.g., I’m used to doing puzzles that attach.) Help Seeking (e.g., How do you make the diamond?) Help Giving (e.g., Okay. Well, you just need to look for a green one.)

Descriptive Analyses: 

Descriptive Analyses Mastery-oriented beliefs Features of conversations

Mastery-Orientated Beliefs: 

Mastery-Orientated Beliefs

Descriptive Analyses: 

Descriptive Analyses Mastery-oriented beliefs Features of conversations

Gender Differences in Performance Checks: 

Gender Differences in Performance Checks

Predicting Mastery-Oriented Beliefs : 

Predicting Mastery-Oriented Beliefs Hierarchical regression analyses Dependent variable Mastery-oriented beliefs at post-discussion Control variable Mastery-oriented beliefs at post-failure Predictor variables Statement type Gender (male, female) Condition (friend success, friend failure)

Predicting Mastery-Oriented Beliefs: 

Predicting Mastery-Oriented Beliefs Statement Type Main Effect Discounting statements (FC), β = -.15, p < .01 Help-giving statements (Friend), β = .12, p < .01

Predicting Mastery Orientation: 

Predicting Mastery Orientation Statement Type x Gender Interactions Negative performance statements (FC), β= -.28, p < .001 Negative self-evaluative statements (FC), β= -.19, p < .01

Negative Performance Statements: 

Negative Performance Statements

Negative Self-Evaluative Statements: 

Negative Self-Evaluative Statements

Why the gender difference?: 

Why the gender difference? Sequential analyses What happens immediately after each statement type? Are particular sequences of statements more likely to occur with boys than with girls?

Sequential AnalysesNegative Performance Statements: 

Sequential Analyses Negative Performance Statements

Sequential AnalysesNegative Self-Evaluative Statements: 

Sequential Analyses Negative Self-Evaluative Statements

Sample Conversation Between Girls: 

Sample Conversation Between Girls FC: I can’t put puzzles together. As a matter of fact I think that I may need to practice a little more. FR: I know… This was hard. FC: [Laughs] …. I mean, I hated it. I was like, ok do this, do this, and then she was like, ‘I’m sorry, but your time is up.’ FR: I know, she was like, ‘It’s time for the next one.’ I was like, um. FC: [Laughs]. Shoot! FR: And then …. it was time for the next one. FC: …I’m still shaking from doing it.

Co-RuminationRose (2002): 

Co-Rumination Rose (2002) Co-rumination is characterized by repeated discussion of the same problem mutual encouragement of discussing problem Girls are more likely to co-ruminate than are boys Co-rumination has tradeoffs