Social Position and Performance-Approach Goal Endorsement: The Mediating Role of Social Value

• In Event: The “What” and “Why” of Achievement Motivation: Antecedents, Consequences, and Mechanisms of Achievement Goal Complexes

Abstract

When individuals face tasks in which their competencies are at stake, they commonly endorse performance-approach goals (i.e., striving to demonstrate superior competence relatively to others, see Elliot & Hulleman, 2017). These goals have received a lot of attention in the literature because they are associated with both positive (e.g., achievement, Van Yperen, Blaga & Postmes, 2014) and negative (e.g., surface learning, cheating behaviors, see Sommet & Elliot, 2016) outcomes. Research investigating the antecedents of these goals has found that both individual (e.g., temperament, traits) and contextual characteristics (e.g., class climate, competition) orient individuals to these goals. In the present research, we examined a recent proposal that individuals who occupy a high social position should be more prone to endorse performance-approach goals than those who occupy a low social position (Berger & Archer, 2016).

So far, support to this hypothesis in the literature is scarce—two studies show no difference (Jury, Smeding, Court, & Darnon, 2015; Sommet, Quiamzade, Jury, & Mugny, 2015) and one shows a significant difference (Berger & Archer, 2016). Here, we argue that this inconsistency might be due to confounds within the measures of both social position and performance-approach goals. Indeed, the two dimensions defining one’s social position—power (i.e., the control one has over resources, Blader & Chen 2014) and status (i.e., the standing that one has in the eyes of others)—and the two subcomponents encompassed within performance-approach goals—the normative component (i.e., striving to be better than others) and the appearance component (i.e., striving to demonstrate superior ability, Korn & Elliot, 2016)—are not been considered separately in this domain.

We posit that status should be linked specifically to the appearance component but not the normative component (i.e., the higher the status, the more individuals should endorse appearance-approach goals). On the other hand, we posit that power should be linked specifically to the normative component but not the appearance component (i.e., the higher the power, the more individuals should endorse normative-approach goals). In addition, based on the achievement goal social value framework (see Darnon, Dompnier, Delmas, Pulfrey, & Butera, 2009), we posit that these relations should be partially explained by the social value (i.e., social utility and social desirability) associated with these goals.

Two studies examined these hypotheses. The first study, involving 235 university students, confirmed that status and power (measured through proxies - prestige and dominance; Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich, 2010) are respectively and uniquely related to appearance-approach and normative-approach goals. The second study, involving 196 online workers, replicated these findings while showing that the power-normative goals link is explained by the higher social utility associated with these goals, and that the status-appearance goals link is explained by both higher social utility and higher social desirability.

Implications, limits (i.e., the correlational nature of the data), and perspectives (i.e., the experimental manipulation of status and power) will be discussed.

Author

• Mickaël Jury, Ecole Supérieure du Professorat et de l'Education - Lille Nord de France