Presentation for 11th Biennial Conference of Asian Association of Social Psychology and PAP 52nd Annual Convention

1. Social Comparison, Trait
Hope, and Cognitive Task
Performance: A Goal
Orientation Perspective
Gabriel Sebastian N. Lizada
(Ateneo de Davao University)
Peter Hans Z. Tejada, Johanna Victoria A. Garcia, Maria Guadalupe C. Salanga
(De La Salle University)
Allan B.I Bernardo
(University of Macau, Macau SAR China)

2. • Mastery Goals – Striving to
improve one’s competence (Ames,
1992)
• Performance Goals – Striving to
outperform others (Ames,1992)

3. • Multiple Goal Perspective
– Performance-approach goals are
beneficial to learning especially when
adopted together with mastery goals
(Linnenbrink, 2005)
• Mastery Goals + Performance Goals
= Good for academic achievement.

4. Social Comparison
• Social Comparison (Upward and Downward)
– Cognitive process of evaluating one’s self in relation
to others (Festinger, 1954)
– Johnson and Stapel (2007), social comparison
affects task performance.
• Social Comparison = performance-approach
goal orientation.

5. Trait Hope
• Hope (Trait)
– Hope is defined by as the cognitions regarding one’s
expectations and ability to attain important goals. It can
exist as a trait and a temporary state of mind (Snyder,
2003)
– Has also been shown to predict academic achievement in
students (Curry, Snyder, Cook, Ruby, & Rehm, 1997)
– Agency = motivation and perceived capacity to
achieve a goal
– Pathways = Plans or strategies to achieve the goal.
• Trait Hope improves self-efficacy and
determination of goal attainment
• Trait Hope = Mastery- approach goal

6. The Current Study
SOCIAL
COMPARISON
TASK
PERFORMANCE
Does Hope significantly predict task performance?
Does Social Comparison significantly predict task performance?
Does Hope and Social Comparison predict task performance?
HOPE

7. Method: Trait Hope Scale
• 63 participants
• Undergraduate students from a private
school in the Philippines
• Taking introductory courses in Psychology
• No foreign participants were included

8. Method: Trait Hope Scale
• Hope Scale (Snyder, 1991)
• 12 item scale
• Scale also contains questions for agency,
(4 questions), pathways (4 questions) and
distracter questions (4 questions)
– overall alphas from .80;
• agency of .78 and;
• pathways of .77

10. Method: Social Comparison
• Phase 1: Bogus Intelligence Test (Stanford-
Ross Intelligence Test)
• Phase 2: Manipulation of Social
Comparison
– Personalized envelopes with results of IQ test
– Randomly separated participants based on
“results”
– Arrangement was manipulated (face-to-face
with opposite group)
– Asked to answer the task

11. Method: Task Performance
• Anagram (3 words)
– O L O A B N L (Balloon)
– Y H H M T R(Rhythm)
– I O R S G V I (Mixture of letters with no
answer)
• 10 minutes to answer
• Raise hand if think they got the answer
• Unlimited attempts
• Can withdraw any time.

12. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Results

13. N Mean SD N Mean SD
Hope
32
53.12 4.59
31
52.90 3.34
Task
Performa
nce
8.09 2.42 9.2 2.47
UPWARD COMPARISON DOWNWARD COMPARISON
Results

14. *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
H
O
P
E

15. Standardized
Coefficient
Beta
t-score p
Social
Comparison
.253 2.280 .026
Hope .451 4.058 .000
R2
.261
df 2,60
F score 10.581
p .000

16. Discussion
• Both Hope and Social Comparison
significantly predict Task
Performance among adolescents in
terms of performance goals
• Students with higher hope are more
persistent in completing tasks.

17. Discussion: Social Comparison
• Social Comparison predicts better task performance. Social
Comparison is a better predictor (as compared with hope) in
predicting task performance.
• Students that used upward social comparison perform better
than those who used downward social comparison. These
results support the findings of previous studies (Johnson &
Stapel, 2007), which state that individuals engaging in USC
perform better with their goals to fight off threat to self
• Students that used upward social comparison are more patient
and persistent in completing a task as compared to those that
used downward social comparison since they are challenged to
finish the goal and ultimately improving future performance.

18. Discussion: Hope
• Hope broadens an individuals possible solutions
(divergent thinking).
• Students will more likely generate different
problem solving strategies to accomplish a task.
• Students with high hope remain are more
determined in finishing a task.
• Students with high hope see tasks as a challenge
while students with low hope see tasks will more
likely give-up.
• Hope positively affects task performance in
students in completing a goal.