Social Comparison, Trait Hope, and Cognitive Task Performance: A

Goal Orientation Perspective

Gabriel Sebastian N. Lizada(Ateneo de Davao University)

Peter Hans Z. Tejada, Johanna Victoria A. Garcia, Maria Guadalupe C. Salanga (De La Salle University)

Allan B.I Bernardo (University of Macau, Macau SAR China)

• Mastery Goals – Striving to improve one’s competence (Ames, 1992)• Performance Goals – Striving

to outperform others (Ames,1992)

• Multiple Goal Perspective – Performance-approach goals are

beneficial to learning especially when adopted together with mastery goals (Linnenbrink, 2005)

• Mastery Goals + Performance Goals = Good for academic achievement.

Social Comparison • Social Comparison (Upward and

Downward)– Cognitive process of evaluating one’s self in

relation to others (Festinger, 1954)– Johnson and Stapel (2007), social comparison

affects task performance.

• Social Comparison = performance-approach goal orientation.

Trait Hope• Hope (Trait)

– Hope is defined by as the cognitions regarding one’s expectations and ability to attain important goals. It can exist as a trait and a temporary state of mind (Snyder, 2003)

– Has also been shown to predict academic achievement in students (Curry, Snyder, Cook, Ruby, & Rehm, 1997)

– Agency = motivation and perceived capacity to achieve a goal

– Pathways = Plans or strategies to achieve the goal.

• Trait Hope improves self-efficacy and determination of goal attainment

• Trait Hope = Mastery- approach goal

The Current Study

SOCIAL COMPARISON

TASK PERFORMANCE

Does Hope significantly predict task performance?Does Social Comparison significantly predict task performance?Does Hope and Social Comparison predict task performance?

HOPE

Method: Trait Hope Scale• 63 participants• Undergraduate students from a

private school in the Philippines• Taking introductory courses in

Psychology• No foreign participants were

included

Method: Trait Hope Scale• Hope Scale (Snyder, 1991)• 12 item scale• Scale also contains questions for

agency, (4 questions), pathways (4 questions) and distracter questions (4 questions)– overall alphas from .80; • agency of .78 and;• pathways of .77

Method: Social Comparison• Phase 1: Bogus Intelligence Test

(Stanford-Ross Intelligence Test)• Phase 2: Manipulation of Social

Comparison– Personalized envelopes with results of IQ test– Randomly separated participants based on

“results”– Arrangement was manipulated (face-to-face

with opposite group)– Asked to answer the task

Method: Task Performance• Anagram (3 words)– O L O A B N L (Balloon) – Y H H M T R(Rhythm)– I O R S G V I (Mixture of letters with no

answer)• 10 minutes to answer• Raise hand if think they got the answer• Unlimited attempts• Can withdraw any time.

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Results

N Mean SD N Mean SD

Hope 32

53.12 4.59

31

52.90 3.34

Task Perform

ance8.09 2.42 9.2 2.47

UPWARD COMPARISON DOWNWARD COMPARISON

Results

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

HOPE

Standardized

Coefficient Beta

t-score p

Social Comparison

.253 2.280 .026

Hope .451 4.058 .000

R2 .261df 2,60

F score 10.581p .000

Discussion• Both Hope and Social Comparison

significantly predict Task Performance among adolescents in terms of performance goals

• Students with higher hope are more persistent in completing tasks.

Discussion: Social Comparison• Social Comparison predicts better task performance. Social

Comparison is a better predictor (as compared with hope) in predicting task performance.

• Students that used upward social comparison perform better than those who used downward social comparison. These results support the findings of previous studies (Johnson & Stapel, 2007), which state that individuals engaging in USC perform better with their goals to fight off threat to self

• Students that used upward social comparison are more patient and persistent in completing a task as compared to those that used downward social comparison since they are challenged to finish the goal and ultimately improving future performance.

Discussion: Hope• Hope broadens an individuals possible

solutions (divergent thinking).• Students will more likely generate different

problem solving strategies to accomplish a task.

• Students with high hope remain are more determined in finishing a task.

• Students with high hope see tasks as a challenge while students with low hope see tasks will more likely give-up.

• Hope positively affects task performance in students in completing a goal.