Achievement goal promotion at university: Social desirability and social utility of mastery and performance goals.

Abstract

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.

Perfectionism and social desirability: Students report increased perfectionism to create a positive impression

“…Hence, our findings (like Guignard and colleagues' observation) indicate that students perceive socially prescribed perfectionism as a characteristic that-like having high achievement goals PERFECTIONISM AND SOCIAL DESIRABILITY 10 (Darnon et al, 2009)-is socially desirable in educational settings.…”

The interplay of mastery and performance goals in social comparison: A multiple-goal perspective.

“…Previous research has indicated that in a university context, both mastery and performance-approach goals are perceived as adaptive (as "socially useful"; cf. Darnon et al, 2009; see also ). This suggests that students consider that their achievement at university is determined by both a criterion-based assessment (reaching a certain level of achievement; i.e., the official assessment method) and a norm-referenced selection system (being better than others; i.e., the actual functioning of selection at university).…”

“…Indeed, most of them promote social comparison using various systems of normative grading, streaming, ranking, and selection (see Ames, 1992;Covington, 1992;Darnon, Dompnier, Delmas, Pulfrey, & Butera, 2009;Levine, 1983;Urdan, 2004). However, what do students expect when they compare with others?…”

Etudier, Mesurer et Manipuler la Classe Sociale en Psychologie Sociale: Approches Economiques, Symboliques et Culturelles [Studying, Measuring and Manipulating Social Class in Social Psychology: Economic, Symbolic and Cultural Approaches]

“…La place assignée à l'école dans l'établissement d'une société méritocratique lui confère deux fonctions distinctes: une fonction de formation qui viserait à développer les savoirs et compé-tences de tous les élèves; une fonction de sélection devant permettre d'orienter chacun vers différents types de formations (e.g., professionnalisante ou générale) et à terme vers la position sociale qui lui conviendrait le mieux au regard de ses aptitudes et motivations (Autin, Batruch, & Butera, 2015;Darnon, Dompnier, Delmas, Pulfrey, & Butera, 2009;Dornbusch, Glasgow, & Lin, 1996). Au-delà de l'idéal d'une sélection basée sur le mérite des individus, la réalité montre que la fonction de sélection s'opère au détriment des élèves de classe populaire, qui sont exclus des formations les plus valorisées (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1970;OCDE, 2014;Palheta, 2011).…”