The Effects of Achievement Priming on Expectations and Performance

1. The Effects of Achievement Priming on Expectations and Performance Kathryn Raso Team 14 PSY 321

2. Contents • Introduction • Methods • Results • Discussion

3. Introduction: Priming • Priming: activating certain association • Shown to affect behavior (cognitive tasks, motor skills) • One study showed that priming a social group could affect participants’ cognitive performance (Lin, Van Havermaet, Frank & McIntyre, 2012) • Subconscious primes: • Asian ethnicity prime had positive effect on math task • Elderly prime had negative effect on memory task

4. Introduction (continued) • However, prime does not need to be subconscious • Study showed that priming a goal of achievement on motor tasks had positive effect on that task, regardless of whether it was conscious or not (Legal, Meyer, & Delouvee, 2006) • Priming can affect not only performance itself, but expectations of performance

5. Introduction (continued) • Recent study examined not just performance but expectations participants had about their own performance (Custers, Aarts, Oikawa, & Elliot, 2009) • “Trigger” concept of achievement can affect expectations, and therefore performance • Analogy: salt and pepper, achievement construct and successful task outcome (linked if activated at same time) • Activating concept of achievement can motivate behavior by altering expectations! • Hypothesis: priming the concept of achievement will positively affect the expectations of performing as well as the performance itself on a written test.

6. Method: Participants • N = 20 • Undergraduate Psychology students, CSUN • Gender • Female: 70%; Male: 30% • Age • Range: 20 – 26 years • M = 22.25, SD = 1.80 • Ethnicity • Latino/Hispanic: 45% • Caucasian/White: 20% • Asian: 15% • Middle Eastern: 10% • Other: 10%

7. Method: Materials • Index card • Even: Experimental • Odd: Control • PART 1: Crossword puzzle (Puzzle Maker, www.discoveryeducation.com) • Experimental: Achievement-related (Custers et al., 2009) • Control: Neutral • Expected score • “On the following line, please indicate how many questions you expect to answer correctly during the following exam (in percentage form)” • PART 2: Written Test • 15 items, multiple-choice • Lower division psychology, sample IQ test questions (e.g. number analogies), vocabulary

9. Method: Procedure • First, participants received numbered index cards; those with even numbers sat in front, odd in back • Then, students in front received experimental version of Part 1. Students in back received control version • After timing students for 5 minutes, researchers gave instructions to turn over Part 1 and answer performance expectation question on back

10. Procedure (continued) • Part 1 was collected; participants reminded to keep numbers (index card) in case they wanted to find out subsequent test results at end • Then, Part 2 was handed out, timed for 7 minutes • Finally, tests were collected; students instructed to submit index card only if interested in knowing results • Tests were immediately graded following completion of Part 2 (was optional for students to remain after 7 minutes elapsed)

11. Results • Test scores for control group (M = 58, SD = 17.41) were not significantly different from experimental group (M = 49.59, SD = 18.63) • Expected scores for control group (M = 69.73, SD = 23.62) not significantly different from experimental group (M = 67.00, SD = 37.19) • T-test for independent groups showed no significant relationship between condition and test scores, t(18) = 1.064, p > 0.05

12. Results (continued) • Also, no significant relationship between condition and expected test scores, t(18) = 0.20, p > 0.05 • Pearson correlation test showed no significant association between expected scores and test scores, r = -0.027, p > 0.05 • Chi Square test to assess association between condition and desire for feedback showed low strength of association, X 2 = 0.90, N = 20, p > 0.05

13. Discussion • Findings did not support hypothesis that achievement prime would increase expectations of performance, performance itself, and desire for feedback • Not consistent with previous research on priming (Lin et al., 2012; Legal et al., 2006; Custers et al., 2009) • Control group had slightly higher average test scores (performance and expectations), opposite of hypothesis • Slight negative correlation between expected and actual scores (not significant, but interesting…)

14. Discussion (continued) • Limitations and Issues to consider: • Front seating for experimental group: more visible, closer to researchers, possible feeling of being under more scrutiny • Ineffective priming procedure: limited time, and crossword format didn’t guarantee exposure to all achievement-related words • No baseline established for test; individual differences not taken into account

15. Discussion (continued) • Future research: • “Expectation of performance” question wording may not have been clear (not everyone answered in percentage form) • Clarify whether content of test is valid/reliable measure • Ensure equal exposure to priming words • Use matched-group design (control for variation in testing ability)

16. THE END!