Social utility, social desirability and scholastic judgments: Toward a personological model of academic evaluation

Abstract

The aim of this article is to gain further insight into the determinants of scholastic judgments. On the basis of a previous study , we propose a model of the processes underlying teachers' judgments. In addition to taking into account some of these determinants, the proposed model grants to pupils' social utility, as perceived by their teacher, the status of central mediator between scholastic judgments and their determinants (pupils' actual academic achievement, pupils' scholastic history, classroom context, and internality perceived by teachers). The initial model was tested on a first sample of 250 pupils (3rd grade) and their teachers, and then improved. Next, the modified model was validated on a second sample of 249 pupils (3rd grade) and their teachers. The results obtained on this sample indicated that the modified model fit the data to a satisfactory extent, and that it is more parsimonious that alternative nonhierachical models.Scholastic judgments play a key role in educational practices (Good & Brophy, 2000;Monteil, 1990). As an indicator of academic performance, they have many consequences on both pupils and teachers. However, research has shown that scholastic judgments are not a perfect measure of pupil's achievement level but are also influenced by other factors . In a recent article , we proposed a model that integrates some of the determinants of scholastic judgments (e.g., classroom context, pupils' scholastic history) and sheds light on the effects of the norm of internality on evaluative practices in the classroom. The aim of this article is to replicate some of the results obtained in our earlier study, and to extend this work by proposing a model of scholastic judgment that takes into account the function of personality traits in evaluative We thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on a preceding version of this article.

Sprinter’s motor signature does not change with fatigue

“…Then, we used a step-by-step multiple regression analysis (Foucart 1999;Dompnier et al 2007), entering the individual factor scores on the three components as independent variables and mean velocity as dependent variables. In order to understand the effect of fatigue, we divided the data into two groups: the first includes the velocity of R1 and R2, and the second the velocity of R3 and R4.…”

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

“…The second dimension generally includes traits such as competent, smart, and idiot and has been defined by several researchers as “competence” (Fiske et al, 2002; Judd et al, 2005; Reeder & Brewer, 1979; Wojciszke, 1997, 2005), “self-profitability” (Peeters, 1992, 2002), “intellectual desirability” (Rosenberg et al, 1968), “dominance” (Wiggins, 1979), or “social utility” (Beauvois, 2003; Dubois & Beauvois, 2005). The existence of these two dimensions in social judgment has been documented in different areas: stereotypes and intergroup relations (Fiske et al, 2002; Judd et al, 2005), perception of occupations (Cambon, 2002; Le Barbenchon, Cambon, & Lavigne, 2005), scholastic judgments (Dompnier, Pansu, & Bressoux, 2007), social norms (Cambon, Djouari, & Beauvois, 2006; Devos-Comby & Devos, 2001; Dubois & Beauvois, 2005), person perception (Reeder & Brewer, 1979; Wojciszke, 1997, 2005), and personality assessment (Wiggins, 1979). Among the various bidimensional conceptions of person attributes, the approach of Beauvois and Dubois (Beauvois, 2003; Dubois & Beauvois, 2005) seems particularly relevant to the problem of determining in what way goals are valued at university.…”

Are Some Rabbits More Competent and Warm Than Others?

“…And this is why we had to define them in a more human-specific way (Beauvois & Dubois, 2008, 2009; Dubois & Beauvois, 2005). Moreover, it should be noted that other investigators have taken up these constructs in their work on the value of persons (Cambon, 2006; Cassignol-Bertrand, Baldet, Louche, & Papet, 2006; Darnon, Dompnier, Delmas, Pulfrey, & Butera, 2009; Devos-Comby & Devos, 2001; Dompnier, Pansu, & Bressoux, 2007; Le Barbenchon & Milhabet, 2005). These constructs appear to enable researchers (1) to remain in a very general framework of analysis when assessing the social value of others (and maybe even of things and animals) encountered in everyday social interactions, and (2) to avoid the outcomes that the descriptive approach to these factors entails (Assertion 2 of psychological realism which states how human personalities are structured).…”