Les liens entre buts d'accomplissement et construction identitaire

L'influence du contexte social sur les buts est démontré selon le degré des relations avec les pairs, mais aussi selon le statut social associé aux buts (Anderman & Anderman, 1999). Dans cette étude, les buts poursuivis sont liés aux perceptions sociales et à la focalisation sur soi. Des buts d'apprentissage, centrés sur la tâche, entraînent moins de focalisation sur soi, alors que des buts « sociaux », centrés sur les capacités, augmentent le focus sur soi, le groupe des pairs ou des

camarades constituant alors une source de comparaison pour évaluer ses propres performances. Comme le soulignent Levy, Kaplan et Patrick (2004) concernant les études sur les buts, « la

grande majorité des recherches a abordé comment les buts d'accomplissement des individus sont associés avec leurs propres croyances ou leurs propres comportements sur des exercices scolaires, mais peu d'attention a été portée sur les attitudes et les comportements en fonction des autres » (p.

127, traduction libre). Les relations sociales entre les apprenants ne peuvent donc pas être négligées lorsqu’il s’agit de comprendre les buts (Darnon et al., 2012 ; Levy et al., 2004 ; Poortvliet & Darnon, 2010).

Lorsque des élèves sont interrogés sur leur réussite au collège, ceux-ci l'expliquent plus par des appartenances groupales, telles que leur famille, leurs amis ou leur ethnie que par les contextes d'apprentissage (Kaplan & Flum, 2009). Particulièrement chez les adolescents, les concepts de développement de l'identité et d'identification sont primordiaux pour comprendre les mécanismes liés à la motivation scolaire (Wigfield & Wagner, 2005). C'est ce qui fait dire à Jere Brophy (2005) que les théories centrales de la motivation ont été traitées comme axées sur la réussite (« achievement based ») alors qu'en fait elles sont basées sur les valeurs et l'identité (« value based

and identity oriented »). Dans une étude menée dans l'état du Michigan aux Etats-Unis, les buts de

performance (i.e., « ego goals » ici) n'ont pas forcément le même poids selon l'ethnie d'origine (Kaplan & Maehr 1999) : le lien entre l'adoption de ces buts de performance et le Sentiment d'Efficacité Personnelle ou avec certains comportements (d'agitation) est divergent pour les afro-américains par rapport aux afro-américains de souche européenne.

Pour ce qui concerne le sens de la causalité entre les buts d'accomplissement et le concept de soi, et en référence aux liens guidant ces buts et la perception de soi, les attentes de compétence peuvent être considérées comme des antécédents de l'adoption des buts, de performance et de maîtrise (Elliot & Church, 1997) (Figure 3).

Dispositions Buts

motivationnelles d'accomplissement Résultats scolaires

Attentes de compétence

Figure 3. Modèle hiérarchique d'approche et d'évitement de la motivation à la réussite (Elliot & Church, 1997)

L'adoption de buts de maîtrise et de performance augmente quand les attentes de compétence sont fortes et les résultats scolaires s'en trouveront améliorés, mais ces deux types de buts se distinguent par le fait que seuls les buts de performance engendrent une peur de l'échec (au même titre que les buts de performance-évitement également). Certains modèles de motivation en contexte scolaire montrent aussi que les auto-évaluations des élèves prédisposent à l'engagement dans des activités (cf. Viau, 1994). Les notions de compétence, de valeur et de contrôlabilité de l'activité sont ainsi les déterminants de l'engagement cognitif et de la persévérance nécessaires aux performances.

Le lien entre identité sociale et buts de performance-approche a déjà été souligné (Levy et

al., 2004 ; Tossman, Kaplan & Assor, 2008), mais n'a pas été étudié dans un contexte de

comparaison sociale induit. Pourtant, dans un contexte de prégnance des buts de performance, la comparaison intergroupe prévaut (Anderman, 1999 ; Levy et al., 2004). Alors que les élèves focalisés sur des buts de maîtrise sont plus centrés sur la coopération avec les autres, et moins concernés par leur statut social, les élèves centrés sur des buts de performance-approche prennent en compte les hiérarchies sociales. En outre, dans un même contexte de classe, qui rend saillant certains buts de performance-approche, les élèves utilisent un biais pro-endogroupe, ils préfèrent coopérer avec des individus qui leur sont similaires (Tossman et al., 2008). Des processus liés à la construction de l’identité sociale sont donc particulièrement présents pour les buts de performance-approche. Inversement, pour ces mêmes auteurs, la saillance de buts de maîtrise rend la catégorisation sociale en termes de groupes sociaux beaucoup moins importante.

Les évaluations de soi reposant sur des comparaisons normatives à autrui (Wayment & Taylor, 1995), l'accès à des standards absolus liés au contenu de la tâche ou à des standards auto-référencés comme les performances antérieures doit être différent selon les contextes. De plus, en

référence à la Théorie de l’Identité Sociale et aux cibles des comparaisons, les comparaisons intergroupes concernent plus une dimension évaluatrice du Soi (Zagefka & Brown, 2006), les participants qui se comparent le plus à un exogroupe privilégient ce motif d'évaluation pour expliquer cette comparaison sociale. Comme les comparaisons intergroupes, entre groupes sociaux,

sont substantielles aux interactions sociales et présentes sans même de processus de comparaison (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990), un contexte de comparaison entre les genres, collectif, et un contexte sans comparaison explicite pourraient être générateurs de l'adoption de plus de buts de performance-approche qu'un contexte de comparaison « intra-genre », individuel et personnel. Les comparaisons intragroupes étant plus prédictives des habiletés ou des compétences réelles (Butler, 1992), elles devraient mener les élèves à adopter plus de buts de maîtrise, pour une « amélioration de soi », qu'un contexte de comparaison intergroupe, plus enclin à une « protection de soi ».

Quel rôle peut avoir une comparaison sociale induite sur les buts d'approche, de performance et de maîtrise ? L'activation d'une identité sociale peut-elle renforcer l'adoption de buts de performance par rapport à une identité personnelle qui mènerait à plus de buts de maîtrise ?

L'influence et les effets du niveau d'auto-catégorisation (selon une comparaison intergroupe vs intragroupe) sur le concept de soi scolaire et les buts d'accomplissement sont présentés dans l'étude suivante.

2.2.3. Article 3 : « Goals in contexts: How social comparison context favor the emergence of Performance and Mastery Goals » (Chazal, Darnon & Guimond).

RUNNING HEAD: Goals and contexts

Achievement goals in contexts: How social comparison contexts favor the emergence of stereotypical self-concepts and performance and mastery goals

Sébastien Chazal

Clermont University, Blaise Pascal University Céline Darnon

Clermont University, Blaise Pascal University & University Institute of France Serge Guimond

Clermont University, Blaise Pascal University

Sébastien Chazal, Céline Darnon, & Serge Guimond, Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive, Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand, France. This research was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SINERGIA) and the Région Auvergne. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sébastien Chazal, Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive, Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, 34 Avenue Carnot, 63037 Clermont-Ferrand, Cedex, France. E-mail: sebastien.chazal@ac-clermont.fr

Abstract

Self-categorization theory (e.g. Turner, 1987) suggests that intergroup comparisons activate collective selves, while intragroup comparisons engage more personal selves. The present study examines the effects of comparison contexts (intragroup, intergroup, without specific comparison) on academic self-concepts and achievement goals. High school students reported their self-concepts in mathematics, literature as well as their academic mastery (i.e., desire to learn) and performance-approach goals (i.e., desire to stand out positively from the others) while comparing either to ingroup members or to outgroup members. In a control condition, no specific comparison was induced. Results indicated that boys considered themselves more gifted in science, less so in French, than girls in an intergroup condition whereas such gender differences were not observed in an intragroup condition. As far as goals were concerned, the intergroup comparison context led to more performance-approach goals and fewer mastery goals than the intragroup comparison context, whatever students’ gender. The control group increased both mastery goals and

performance-approach goals. The implications for the integration of mechanisms stemming from social comparison on self-concept and achievement goals are discussed.

Achievement goals in contexts: How social comparison contexts favor the emergence of stereotypical self-concepts and performance and mastery goals

When Paul is at school and compares himself to Jane, a girl in his class, to what extent will he seek to show that he is better than others or that he really wants to learn? Will he do differently if he compares himself to Victor, or another boy in his class? The phenomena of social comparison (i.e., Festinger, 1954) and its influence in school settings have frequently been examined in social psychology (Huguet, Dumas, Monteil & Genestoux, 2001; Huguet et al., 2009; Levine, 1983; Ruble, Boggiano, Feldman & Loebl, 1980). In this way, to self-evaluate, students appeal to comparisons between themselves.

Social comparison exerts a strong influence on developmental and motivational processes (Veroff, 1969). Social comparison is also implemented at a quite early age (for a review, see Dijkstra, Kuyper, van der Werf, Buunk & van der Zee, 2009). For example, in an academic domain such as mathematics, no matter their level of performance, the students evaluated themselves more on the basis of information related to comparison than on any information, such as, for example, the feedbacks of their teachers (Mac Iver, 1987; see also Van Yperen & Leander, 2014). These

mechanisms of social comparison are so present, including in the sphere of school, that certain authors consider them as automatic and unconscious (Gilbert, Giesler & Morris, 1995; Mussweiler, Rüter & Epstude, 2004).

However, all types of comparisons are not equal. In particular, according to the

self-categorization theory (e.g. Turner, 1987), whether one compare to ingroup members or to outgroup members has proven to be fundamental: it can explain the way people perceive and describe themselves, as well as their attitudes and behaviors (Guimond, Chatard, Martinot, Crisp &

Redersdorff, 2006; Haslam, Oakes, Reynolds & Turner, 1999; Onorato & Turner, 2004; Reynolds & Oakes, 2000; Turner & Onorato, 1999). In the present article, we will examine whether comparison

contexts, ingroup or outgroup comparisons, affect teenagers’ self-concepts in two academic domain, French and mathematics, as well as the goals they pursue in their classes.

Self-categorization and self-concepts

Self-categorization theory (Turner, 1987; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987) specifies the effects of different types of comparison on the construction of the self. This approach predicts that the type of comparison involved leads to the emergence of different identities: a social identity in the case of a comparison at an intergroup level, and a personal identity in a comparison at an intragroup level (Guimond et al., 2006; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Tesser, 1988). These comparisons also affect school related cognitions. A recent study for example confirmed the influence of these comparison contexts on scientific self-concept, as well as the combined effects of gender and social comparison on choices engaged for the future, such as academic choice (Chazal, Guimond & Darnon, 2012). Indeed, the boys, in comparison to the girls of their class, reported being more scientific than literary, and inversely, the girls said they were more literary than scientific in an intergroup comparison context. Such gender differences fade completely in an intragroup

comparison. This pattern also occurred for a more attitudinal measure: indeed, more boys choose to join a grandes écoles preparatory class than girls in the case of an intergroup comparison, while the reverse occurred in an intragroup comparison context. These differences illustrated how powerful is the social comparison context in the construction of different academic selves that further guide school judgments and behaviors.

According to self-categorization theory, such effects are due to the fact that when one compares to outgroup members, judgments rely on stereotypical thoughts while preserving a certain manifest hostility, or competition, between the groups. In this particular context, the phenomenon of self-stereotyping (Hogg & Turner, 1987) leads to the assimilation of the self with characteristics of the ingroup, with cross-category differences increasing access to stereotypical representations. In

contrast, during intragroup comparisons, personal identity is more associated to self-knowledge (Haddock, MacRae & Fleck, 2002; Mussweiler & Bodenhausen, 2002). This individuation reduces the influence of stereotypes and permits a focusing on the personal competences, independently from his or her group memberships.

One of the aims of the present research is to replicate the above results on an academic self-concept, for the scientific self and the literary self. In addition, the present research aims at testing the influence of these comparison contexts on one of the variables that has most interested

motivation researchers in the past thirty years: achievement goals (Dweck, 1986; Harackiewicz, Barron & Elliot, 1998; Nicholls, 1984).

Achievement goals and social identity

The achievement goals field traditionally defines two types of goals that students can pursue while doing an academic task. Performance goals correspond to the desire to be seen as superior (for performance-approach goals) / not inferior (for performance-avoidance goals) to others. Mastery goals are focused on the task and correspond to the desire to progress (mastery-approach goals) / not to regress (mastery-avoidance goals) (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot, 2005; Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Research has largely documented that goals affect the way individual study (Nolen, 1988; Elliot, McGregor & Gable, 1999) interact (Darnon, Butera & Harackiewicz, 2007; Darnon, Muller, Schrager, Pannuzzo & Butera, 2006; Sommet, Darnon & Butera, in press), perform (Harackiewicz et al., 1998; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer & Elliot, 2002) and behave in the

classroom (for reviews, see Linnenbrink-Garcia, Tyson & Patall, 2008; Senko, Hulleman & Harackiewicz, 2011). As approach goals (i.e., mastery approach and performance-approach goals) remain the most discussed goals in the area (Brophy, 2005; Hulleman, Schrager, Bodmann & Harackiewicz, 2010), they will be the focus of the present research.

Anderman, 2006) can importantly impact the adoption of achievement goals. The nature of the grading structure (Butler & Nisan, 1986; Pulfrey, Buchs & Butera, 2011), competition (Murayama & Elliot, 2012), classroom climate (Ames, 1992; Maehr & Midgley, 1991) are all antecedents of mastery and performance goals. In particular, the way competences are assessed in the classroom is one of the strongest predictor of goal endorsement. Assessment practices that focus on self or task standards are likely to favor mastery goals, whereas assessment practices that focus on normative standards are likely to increase performance goals (Butler, 1987; 2006; Butler & Nisan, 1986). Interestingly, several authors in the area note that although classroom structures have been fully examined as predictors of goal endorsement, few researches has focused on whether group

belongings could also determine the adoption of mastery and performance goals (Darnon, Dompnier & Poortvliet, 2012; Levy, Kaplan & Patrick, 2004; Poortvliet & Darnon, 2010). Though, social identity theory (e.g. Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and self-categorization theory has both shown that social belonging affect the construction of self-concept. Indeed, in an outgroup context, individuals tend to evaluate more positively their group than the other groups (Tajfel, Flament, Billig & Bundy, 1971). Social identity (tied to ethnicity, gender, family, social class, or peer group), which results from this comparison, is frequently used by students to explain their successes or their failures at school (Kaplan & Flum, 2010). As individual motivations are internalized according to affiliations bound to a core self-construct or to other persons (Flum & Blustein, 2000), the study of these identity phenomena, i.e., the representations inserting individuals in a social context, makes complete sense for the understanding of educational processes (Elmore & Oyserman, 2012; Flum & Kaplan, 2012). Furthermore, the emergence of a personal self or a collective self strongly influences adolescents’ expectations of success (Eccles, 2009), and the salience of these self’s levels should impact the adoption of certain achievement goals. Because some characteristics of the environment have been shown to impact goal endorsement (e.g., Ames, 1992; Meece et al., 2006), and because the social comparison context has been shown to predict the emergence of a personal self or a collective self

(Chazal et al., 2012), we think the comparison context that is made salient in the classroom will be another classroom environmental cue that can influence goal endorsement.

There are some conjunctions between social identity theory and achievement goal theory (Kaplan, 2004; Tossman, Kaplan & Assor, 2008). Indeed, in an environment in which performance-approach goals are salient, the social categorizations that oppose different groups are more strongly used compared to an environment that emphasizes mastery goals (Kaplan, 2004). Students oriented toward performance goals establish more social hierarchies in their attempts to optimize their place in this hierarchy (Anderman, 1999), they are more concerned with their social status and prefer to cooperate with their ingroup classmates (Levy et al., 2004). In the context of performance-approach goals, intergroup comparison prevails and an in-group bias is confirmed (Tossman et al., 2008), with these goals specifically associated with the fostering of group membership to the detriment of the outgroup. On the contrary, mastery goals make social comparison less immediate and the in-group bias no longer appears (Kaplan, 2004). The salience of mastery goals, then, make social categorization much less important; students perceive less of a threat from others (Ryan, Hicks & Midgley, 1997), and they are less concerned with social relations and more focused on the school exercise to solve (Anderman & Anderman, 1999).

Achievement goals and social comparison: connected effects

The notion of comparison is quite present in the original definition of goals (for a review, see Ames, 1984a; 1992). Indeed, performance-approach goals correspond to the drive to have better results than the others, while mastery goals relate to the improvement of one’s own performances. In this sense, when each individual “self-evaluates” their competences, access to performance-approach goals refers to a comparison dimension that is rather more interpersonal by answering the question “Am I doing better than the others?”, while self-evaluations related to mastery goals are often linked to an intrapersonal comparison dimension and answer the question “Am I doing better

than before?”. Thus, according to this definition, performance-approach goals are more “normative”, more centered on one’s ability as compared to others’, and thus, should be more sensitive to a social comparison context than mastery goals (Ames, 1992; Brophy, 2005; Elliot, 1999). Indeed, mastery goals rest on a desire for self-improvement and make concerns related to social comparison less relevant. Mastery goals would then be more “absolute”, more related to a direct self-assessment (Ames, 1984a; Ames & Archer, 1988; Elliott, 1999; Nicholls, 1984), than an assessment via social comparison (but see Van Yperen & Leander, 2014). Incidentally, for certain scholastic tasks, when another succeeds without effort, social comparison negatively influences the perception of competence in a context where performance goals are salient (Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1987), but not in a context of mastery goals.

Previous research has shown that performance and mastery goals differently predict interest in social comparison (Bounoua, Cury, Régner, Huguet, Barron & Elliot, 2011; Darnon, Dompnier, Gilliéron & Butera, 2010; Régner, Escribe & Dupeyrat, 2007). These authors show, for example, that if performance goals always predict interest in social comparison, mastery goals do not predict it unless they are strongly associated with performance goals (Darnon et al., 2010). The originality of the research presented here is to examine this relation by considering that the comparison may precede the adoption of goals, and in integrating the intragroup and intergroup dimensions of social comparison in the explanation that can be made of their links. This issue is particularly important. Indeed, as noted above, performance-approach goals measures involve social comparison (e.g., “it is important to me to do better than others”). However, the target of the social comparison (who “the others” are?) is rarely specified. In this sense, telling participants to compare to outgroup members vs. to ingroup members may impact the extent to which people report comparing or not to “others”. Since in an intragroup comparison context, personal identity is salient, one can expect individuals to be more oriented toward mastery goals (i.e., self-centered goal). On the other hand, an intergroup

comparison context activates social identity, namely a collective definition of the self and a process of social competition (Turner, 1975). In such a context, individuals may be motivated by the

establishment of a positive distinction between self and others and thus, should pursue more performance-approach goals.

Contrary to self-concept, which is strongly affected by gender stereotypes, goals are not expected to vary depending on gender. Indeed, until now, the question of gender has been little