Children exhibit a nuanced understanding of task-motivation fit in middle childhood

• In Event: Poster Session 11
  In Poster Session: PS 11 Topic - Cognitive Processes

Abstract

Different tasks call for different motivations and strategies; while eagerness and optimism may be helpful when composing a fairytale, caution and vigilance may more appropriate when doing one’s math homework. Metamotivational knowledge refers to an understanding of the extent to which qualitatively different motivational states fit with the demands of a task (task knowledge), as well as what strategies might induce or sustain those states (strategy knowledge; Scholer & Miele, 2016). While a growing body of research has examined metamotivational knowledge in adults (e.g., Fujita et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2019), the extent to which children are sensitive to the congruency between motivations/strategies and task demands has yet to have been explored. Addressing this gap, the current study explores 7- to 9-year-old children’s metamotivational knowledge with regard to two domains of motivation regulation (regulatory focus; Higgins, 1997; and construal-level; Liberman & Trope, 2008) as well as strategy for inducing regulatory focus. It was hypothesized that children, like adults, would exhibit accurate task knowledge, but less accurate strategy knowledge.

Sixty-four typically developing children (M = 7.7 years, SD = 0.6, 33 female) participated in a study of social cognition in middle childhood. Participants were introduced to the concept of task-motivation fit and the motivations and strategies one could engage in while completing a task: one could be eager or vigilant (regulatory focus motivation); one could think abstractly or concretely (construal-level motivation); and one could reflect on one’s strengths (to induce eagerness) or weaknesses (to induce vigilance; regulatory focus strategy). Participants were then presented with six hypothetical tasks, three of the Abstract-Eager type (call for eagerness, abstract thinking, consideration of strengths) and three were of the Concrete-Vigilant type (call for vigilance, concrete thinking, consideration of weaknesses). For each task, participants indicated on a scale ranging from 1 (Very poorly) to 5 (Very well). how well they expected they would perform if they were in a motivational state (eager, vigilant, abstract, concrete) or adopted a particular strategy (reflect on strengths, weaknesses).

To evaluate children’s metamotivational knowledge, participants’ ratings for regulatory focus, construal-level, and strategy were analyzed independently through three within-subjects ANOVAs. For regulatory focus, there was a main effect of Motivation, F(1,63) = 57.68, p < .001, qualified by a Task-Type-by-Motivation interaction, F(1,63) = 37.04, p < .001. Participants rated vigilance as superior to eagerness across all tasks, with this difference being greater for Abstract-Eager than Concrete-Vigilant tasks. For construal-level, there was a Task-Type-by-Motivation interaction, F(1,63) = 9.36, p = .003. Participants rated low-level construal as superior to high-level construal for Concrete-Vigilant tasks while rating them similarly for Abstract-Eager tasks. For strategy, there was a main effect of Strategy, F(1,63) = 57.68, p < .001, such that participants predicted better performance when reflecting on strengths than on weaknesses for all trial types. These findings suggest that while children are adult-like in their understanding of task-motivation fit in some domains, their predictions are starkly different in others, prompting new questions regarding the development of metamotivational knowledge across the lifespan.

Authors

• McLennon Wilson, Cape Breton University
  Presenting Author

• Candice Hubley, University of Waterloo
  Non-Presenting Author

• Olivia Hartman, University of Waterloo
  Non-Presenting Author

• Abigail A Scholer, University of Waterloo
  Non-Presenting Author

• Heather Henderson, University of Waterloo
  Non-Presenting Author