The role of regulatory focus in the relations between success/failure feedback and achievement motivation

The role of regulatory focus in the relations between success/failure feedback and achievement motivation

• Shu, Annie Tse Mei

2006

• C Psychology & Learning
  • CB Psychology of Learning
• C Psychology & Learning
  • CC Motivation of Learning

Feedback (Psychology) Self-Control Motivation in Education Academic Achievement College Students - Hong Kong - Psychology

• Hong Kong

• 1997.7 onwards

• Post-Secondary Education

Students' achievement motivation has been the concern of educational psychologists for the past several decades. Empirical studies on the effects of teachers' feedback provide useful information to educators on instructional practices. From these studies, educators know how to cultivate adaptive learning attitudes in students. However, a meta-analysis by Kluger & DeNisi (1996, 1998) did not find consistent effects of success and failure feedbacks in past studies. Idson and Higgins (2000) suggested that regulatory focus, a personality variable, could address these inconsistent effects. In their study, Idson & Higgins (2000) found that individuals with different orientation in regulatory focus would respond differently to success and failure feedback. The motivation of individuals with promotion focus would increase after success feedback but decrease after failure feedback. In contrast, the motivation of individuals with prevention focus would increase after failure but decrease after success feedback.
The present study attempted to identify the group of individuals who would be motivated both after success and failure feedbacks. It adopted an alternative fourfold classification of regulatory focus and extended Idson & Higgins (2000) study. Four independent groups could be derived from this classification: 1) individuals high in promotion focus but low in prevention focus; 2) individuals high in prevention focus but low in promotion focus, 3) individuals high in both prevention and promotion focuses (HH); 4) individuals low in both prevention and promotion focuses (LL). The third group of individuals was expected to be motivated after success and also failure feedbacks. They might be the people with the most adaptive motivational pattern of behaviors.
The present study adopted a 2 (promotion focus: high vs. low) x 2 (prevention focus: high vs. low) x 2 (feedback: success vs. failure) experimental design. The participants were 180 Hong Kong university students. Their regulatory focuses were first measured by questionnaires. Then they were randomly assigned to either success or failure feedback conditions. They were asked to engage in a word association task twice, once before the feedback and a second time afterwards. Their performance and persistence after the feedback were measured for analyses.
The results replicated Idson & Higgins (2000) findings, showing that participants with high promotion focus but low prevention focus increased their performance and persistence after success feedback but decreased their performance and persistence after failure feedback. A mirror pattern was true for the participants with low promotion focus but high prevention focus. However, the present study failed to show that participants who were high in both focuses were motivated both after success and failure feedbacks.
Present findings were discussed with reference to the literature in flexibility and also the cost and benefit of different orientations in regulatory focus. Though the present study could not identify the individuals who were motivated both after success and failure feedback, it shed light on the theoretical possibility of such individuals with flexible functioning of promotion and prevention focuses. Further studies are needed in the exploration of the conditions that lead to adaptive learning attitude from the perspective of regulatory focus theory.

MPhil

University of Hong Kong

Hong Kong

• English

Dissertation Theses

https://bibliography.lib.eduhk.hk/bibs/f22980bd

2010-12-16