1 / 15

Dispositional vs. Situational Goal Orientation: Effects on Self-efficacy and Performance

Dispositional vs. Situational Goal Orientation: Effects on Self-efficacy and Performance. Walter Davis Neal Mero School of Business University of Mississippi June 4, 2002. Background. Learning orientation

abby
Download Presentation

Dispositional vs. Situational Goal Orientation: Effects on Self-efficacy and Performance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Dispositional vs. Situational Goal Orientation: Effects on Self-efficacy and Performance Walter Davis Neal Mero School of Business University of Mississippi June 4, 2002

  2. Background • Learning orientation • the extent to which an individual seeks to learn new competencies in a given task (Button, Mathieu, & Zajoc, 1996) • Performance orientation • the extent to which an individual seeks to demonstrate task competence for the purpose of gaining favorable judgments from others (Button, et al. 1996)

  3. Learning Orientation • respond to task challenges with • feedback seeking (VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997) • increased effort (Button et al. 1996) • focus on development and refinement of skills during training (Brett & VandeWalle, 1999) • perform better in learning and training settings (Fisher & Ford, 1998)

  4. Performance Orientation • seek to avoid task difficulties (Phillips & Gully, 1997) • react to failures with • lower self-efficacy • lower self-set goals (Phillips & Gully, 1997) • focus on comparing favorably to others and avoiding demonstration of incompetence in training settings • (Brett & VandeWalle, 1999)

  5. Research Questions • Can goal orientation be manipulated by task instructions or training environment? (see Stevens & Gist, 1997; education literature) • Can task instructions or training environment "wash out" dispositional effects? • Or does dispositional goal orientation overpower task or training variables?

  6. Accountability Being answerable to audiences for performing up to certain standards, thereby fulfilling obligations, duties, expectations and other charges (Schlenker et al, 94) • Links the individual and the social system (Tetlock, 1985) • May motivate individuals to greater effort (Shepperd, 1993) • Makes goals and standards salient (Schlenker, 1986) • Effects on decision processing: • More thorough search for data • Improved recall • More complex judgment strategies (Schlenker, 1986)

  7. Accountability • Potential positive effects • Increased cognitive complexity • Greater effort • Improved information processing • Potential negative effects • Undermine intrinsic interest • Serve as a distraction • Lead to poor performance

  8. Hypotheses • Process Accountability Instructions will lead to higher Learning Orientation. • Outcome Accountability Instructions will lead to higher Performance Orientation.

  9. Methods • 2 X 2 experimental design Information Fidelity Ambiguous Perfect Process Accountability Outcome • Sample 120 undergraduate students (30 per cell)

  10. Task - “TANDEMS" • TActical Navy Decision Making System • Developed by Naval Training Systems Center / Dwyer et al. 1992 • Simulated radar screen • Targets • Menus access information regarding target origin, direction, altitude/depth, etc. • Subjects determine • Craft type: air, surface, submarine • Military, Civilian, Unknown • Intent: Peaceful, Hostile • Subjects decide • Shoot target • Clear target

  11. Manipulation • Accountability • Process – pre-trial instructions inform students that their decision making process will be monitored • Outcome – pre-trial instructions inform students that their performance will be monitored • Information Fidelity • Perfect – all information regarding craft origin, speed, altitude/depth is correct • Ambiguous – most information is correct but some is incorrect

  12. Measures • Pre-experiment Survey Dispositional Learning orientation (VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997) Dispositional Performance orientation (VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997) "Big 5" (Costa & McCrae, 1991) Self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965) Demographics • Pre-trial Survey Situational Learning Orientation Situational Performance Orientation Self-efficacy

  13. Measures • Task Performance Measures Performance on each of 2 trials • points gained or lost due to correct or incorrect shoot/clear decisions • Post-trial Surveys Task interest Performance satisfaction Self-efficacy

  14. Analysis • Scale reliabilities • Correlation • MANOVA • Regression

  15. Implications • Selection & Classification • Design of Training Programs • Manipulate Goal Orientation?

More Related