Risky prospects and risk aversion tendencies: does competition in the classroom depend on grading practices and knowledge of peer-status?
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.
KeywordsStatus Uncertainty Risk aversion Heuristics and biases Cooperation Competition
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 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