Advertisement

Social Psychology of Education

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 323–335 | Cite as

Risky prospects and risk aversion tendencies: does competition in the classroom depend on grading practices and knowledge of peer-status?

  • Tyler J. Burleigh
  • Daniel V. Meegan
Article

Abstract

When students are faced with the decision of whether to assist a peer, they should be sensitive to the potential risks associated with doing so. Two factors associated with risky helping behaviour in the classroom are: (1) the grading practices that are used, and (2) knowledge of a peer’s relative status. Normative (“curved”) grading creates a situation in which peer-interactions are potentially competitive, but it is only those interactions with peers of a similar status that carry the potential for assistance to be costly to oneself. In two studies, we created hypothetical scenarios in which the grading practices (normative or absolute) and peer-status proximity (proximate, distant, or unknown) were manipulated, and asked participants to report their willingness to cooperate with a peer by sharing their notes from an important lecture. We found that when normative grading was used, individuals were less willing to assist a peer when they knew that the peer’s status was proximate to their own. There was also less cooperation when peer status was unknown, under normative grading, which is consistent with a risk-aversion tendency.

Keywords

Status Uncertainty Risk aversion Heuristics and biases Cooperation Competition 

References

  1. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.84.3.261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burleigh, T. J., & Meegan, D. V. (2013). Keeping up with the joneses affects perceptions of distributive justice. Social Justice Research, 26(2), 120–131.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-013-0181-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burleigh, T. J., Rubel, A. N., & Meegan, D. V. (2017). Wanting ‘the whole loaf’: Zero-sum thinking about love is associated with prejudice against consensual non-monogamists. Psychology and Sexuality, 8(1–2), 24–40.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2016.1269020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carnevale, P. J. D., & Pruitt, D. G. (1992). Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1), 531–582.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.002531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 43–54.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of co-operation and competition. Human Relations, 2(2), 129–152.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674900200204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deutsch, M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 23–42). Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  8. Garcia, S. M., & Tor, A. (2007). Rankings, standards, and competition: Task vs. scale comparisons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 95–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garcia, S. M., Tor, A., & Gonzalez, R. (2006). Ranks and rivals: A theory of competition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 970.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206287640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics of intuitive judgment: Extensions and applications (pp. 1–30). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 267–293). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levy, I., Kaplan, A. V. I., & Patrick, H. (2004). Early adolescents’ achievement goals, social status, and attitudes towards cooperation with peers. Social Psychology of Education, 7(2), 127–159.  https://doi.org/10.1023/b:spoe.0000018547.08294.b6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487–503.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meegan, D. V. (2010). Zero-sum bias: Perceived competition despite unlimited resources. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 77.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Poortvliet, P. M., & Darnon, C. (2010). Toward a more social understanding of achievement goals: The interpersonal effects of mastery and performance goals. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 324–328.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410383246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Poortvliet, P. M., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & van de Vliert, E. (2007). Achievement goals and interpersonal behavior: How mastery and performance goals shape information exchange. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(10), 1435–1447.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207305536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Poortvliet, P. M., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & van de Vliert, E. (2009a). The joint impact of achievement goals and performance feedback on information giving. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31(3), 197–209.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530903058276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Poortvliet, P. M., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & van de Vliert, E. (2009b). Low ranks make the difference: How achievement goals and ranking information affect cooperation intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5), 1144–1147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Porter, C. O. (2005). Goal orientation: effects on backing up behavior, performance, efficacy, and commitment in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 811.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rubin, P. H. (2003). Folk economics. Southern Economic Journal, 70(1), 157.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1061637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Urdan, T., & Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal structures, social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 331–349.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Zins, J. E., & Elias, M. J. (2006). Social and emotional learning: Promoting the development of all students. In G. G. Bear, K. M. Minke, & A. Thomas (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, problems, and Alternatives (pp. 1–13). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations