The Effects of Achievement Priming on Expectations

and Performance

Kathryn Raso

Team 14

PSY 321

Contents

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Introduction: Priming

Priming: activating certain association

Shown to affect behavior (cognitive tasks, motor skills)

One study showed that priming a social group could affect participants’ cognitive performance (Lin, Van Havermaet, Frank & McIntyre, 2012)

Subconscious primes: Asian ethnicity prime had positive effect on math task Elderly prime had negative effect on memory task

Introduction (continued)

However, prime does not need to be subconscious

Study showed that priming a goal of achievement on motor tasks had positive effect on that task, regardless of whether it was conscious or not (Legal,

Meyer, & Delouvee, 2006)

Priming can affect not only performance itself, but expectations of performance

Introduction (continued)

Recent study examined not just performance but expectations participants had about their own performance (Custers, Aarts, Oikawa, & Elliot, 2009)

“Trigger” concept of achievement can affect expectations, and therefore performance

Analogy: salt and pepper, achievement construct and successful task outcome (linked if activated at same time)

Activating concept of achievement can motivate behavior by altering expectations!

Hypothesis: priming the concept of achievement will positively affect the expectations of performing as well as the performance itself on a written test.

Method: Participants

N = 20 Undergraduate Psychology students, CSUN

Gender Female: 70%; Male: 30%

Age Range: 20 – 26 years M = 22.25, SD = 1.80

Ethnicity Latino/Hispanic: 45% Caucasian/White: 20% Asian: 15% Middle Eastern: 10% Other: 10%

Method: Materials

Index card Even: Experimental Odd: Control

PART 1: Crossword puzzle (Puzzle Maker, www.discoveryeducation.com)

Experimental: Achievement-related (Custers et al., 2009)

Control: Neutral

Expected score “On the following line, please indicate how many questions you expect to

answer correctly during the following exam (in percentage form)”

PART 2: Written Test 15 items, multiple-choice Lower division psychology, sample IQ test questions (e.g. number

analogies), vocabulary

Method: Procedure

First, participants received numbered index cards; those with even numbers sat in front, odd in back

Then, students in front received experimental version of Part 1. Students in back received control version

After timing students for 5 minutes, researchers gave instructions to turn over Part 1 and answer performance expectation question on back

Procedure (continued)

Part 1 was collected; participants reminded to keep numbers (index card) in case they wanted to find out subsequent test results at end

Then, Part 2 was handed out, timed for 7 minutes

Finally, tests were collected; students instructed to submit index card only if interested in knowing results

Tests were immediately graded following completion of Part 2 (was optional for students to remain after 7 minutes elapsed)

Results

Test scores for control group (M = 58, SD = 17.41) were not significantly different from experimental group (M = 49.59, SD = 18.63)

Expected scores for control group (M = 69.73, SD = 23.62) not significantly different from experimental group (M = 67.00, SD = 37.19)

T-test for independent groups showed no significant relationship between condition and test scores, t(18) = 1.064, p > 0.05

Results (continued)

Also, no significant relationship between condition and expected test scores, t(18) = 0.20, p > 0.05

Pearson correlation test showed no significant association between expected scores and test scores, r = -0.027, p > 0.05

Chi Square test to assess association between condition and desire for feedback showed low strength of association, X 2 = 0.90, N = 20, p > 0.05

Discussion

Findings did not support hypothesis that achievement prime would increase expectations of performance, performance itself, and desire for feedback

Not consistent with previous research on priming (Lin et al., 2012; Legal et al., 2006; Custers et al., 2009)

Control group had slightly higher average test scores (performance and expectations), opposite of hypothesis

Slight negative correlation between expected and actual scores (not significant, but interesting…)

Discussion (continued)

Limitations and Issues to consider:

Front seating for experimental group: more visible, closer to researchers, possible feeling of being under more scrutiny

Ineffective priming procedure: limited time, and crossword format didn’t guarantee exposure to all achievement-related words

No baseline established for test; individual differences not taken into account

Discussion (continued)

Future research:

“Expectation of performance” question wording may not have been clear (not everyone answered in percentage form)

Clarify whether content of test is valid/reliable measure

Ensure equal exposure to priming words

Use matched-group design (control for variation in testing ability)

THE END!