Content-Type: text/html
THE ROLE OF ADVERTISEMENTS AND PERFORMANCE OR LEARNING GOALS IN PRODUCT SELECTION DECISIONS
\
the Role of Advertisements and Performance or Learning Goals in product selection decisions
Introduction
Many media messages stress the formation and pursuit of personal goals. People hear and see appeals on every side to goal-orientations which they are presumed or encouraged to share. For instance, several recent ad campaigns have featured appeals to various lifestyle goals, such as Volkswagen's, "On the road of life, there are passengers and drivers. Drivers wanted" and Nike's famous slogan "Just do it" (Katz, 1994). Some classic appeals have been less overt but nonetheless encourage the consumer to associate the brand with a goal philosophy; for example, Microsoft's "Where do you want to go today?" and Sprite's "Image is nothing-Obey your thirst."
Public-service announcements also make use of the presumed goal-orientations of the audience, as they attempt to promote behavior that their sponsors consider healthy or appropriate, such as staying in school until the completion of a secondary diploma, or refraining from high-risk sexual activity, or arranging for children's vaccinations. Education-related PSAs frequently stress performance, as in such themes as "Excellence in Education" favored by many U.S. universities; religiously-funded PSAs tend to stress such developmental goals as forgiveness, as in the family-oriented ads of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Despite the frequent appearance of ads which present a goal orientation, there has been surprisingly little research on goals as used in mass communication. One useful theoretical framework for such research exists in the psychology and education literature. Harackiewicz, Barron, and Elliot (1998) define goals as "cognitive representations of the things we wish to accomplish" (p.2); goals guide, direct, and energize activity (Dweck, 1986; Spence and Helmreich, 1983). Researchers have distinguished between two major categories of personal goals: performance-oriented and learning-oriented (Ames and Archer, 1988; Pintrich and Schunk, 1996). Harackiewicz, Barron, and Elliot (1998) define the two types of goals as follows: "Performance goals highlight normatively based standards and promote the demonstration of ability relative to others, whereas mastery [or learning] goals are self-referential, focusing on the development of skill and competence relative to the task and one's
own past performance" (p.2). Performance goals reflect a central concern with overall achievement, innate and immutable talent, and display of prowess; learning goals work in a context of mastering specific skills, incrementally developing competence, and relying on effort as a determinant of success. Psychological research also describes a state of helpless withdrawal from attempts to fulfil goals which the individual is convinced are beyond his or her ability; this condition, learned helplessness, must be considered in any comprehensive study of goal orientation.
Whereas examples of goal-oriented messages are plentiful and varied, useful theoretical frameworks within which to study the impact of goals are scarce. Scholars have neglected to investigate how mass-communication-induced goals affect individuals' perceptions of their capacities and influence their decisions. The important question remains whether mass communication messages can be used to strengthen and empower the individual as well as to promote social and economic activity. This study pioneers the application of goal-orientation theory to mass-communication research, opening an entire field of inquiry that has not yet been discovered. It will address questions such as: Can goals be instilled in a target audience using public-service announcements (PSAs)? Can goals transmitted through PSAs influence the choices (either product or behavior) of the target audience? Can learned helplessness be triggered through PSAs? It will also apply certain educational theories beyond
the limited boundaries of the classroom.
Literature Review
Literature in Mass Communication and Marketing
Neither the literature from mass communication nor that from marketing has contributed to the specific subject matter of this study. Research in mass communication, for example, has focused on two tangentially-related issues: the depiction of helplessness in mass media and the use of public-service announcements to further a particular goal. Literature concerning the depiction of helplessness in mass media, specifically in television news, has proceeded on the grounds that repeated exposure to others' helplessness may affect viewers of these messages (Shafer and Larson, 1972; Gerbner and Gross, 1976; Levine, 1977, 1988). The literature concerned with public-service announcements has no mention of learned helplessness or goals within that context (O'Keefe and Reid, 1990; O'Keefe, 1985; Smith, 1997; Pasick and Wallack; 1988). The literature in the field of business regarding learned helplessness consists of overviews of the concept with some speculations about training design
or management style that may alleviate people's helplessness (Hayes, 1992; Kankus & Cavalier, 1995; Kohli, Sherwani, & Challagalla, 1998; La Forge, 1989; Martinko, 1981;Martinko & Gardner, 1982; Ray, 1988; Walker, 1992).
Psychology Literature
Dweck and Leggett's (1988) social-cognitive theory of motivation postulates that a person's goal orientation causes his or her behavioral responses in academic settings. A person committed to personal improvement and mastery is said to have a learning orientation, which leads to adaptive responses such as strategy shifting, increased effort, and persistence in the face of difficulty (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot & Dweck, 1988). A person who is committed to normatively high achievement is said to have a performance orientation, which can influence the person to develop the maladaptive behaviors encompassed by the term learned helplessness (Blumenfeld, 1992; Diener and Dweck, 1978; Dweck, 1975; Meece, Blumenfeld & Hoyle, 1988).
Diener and Dweck (1978) contrasted "helpless" children with "mastery-oriented" children. They conducted a study of fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade students who began by taking a questionnaire to classify them as either "helpless" or "mastery-oriented." After classification, the children were given twelve problems to solve, the last four of which were designed to be unsolvable. When asked to evaluate their work and predict their success with similar problems in the future, helpless children underestimated their previous success rate more often, as well as forecasting much lower success rates in future, than the non-helpless children. Moreover, helpless children attributed their failure to lack of ability, which inspired lethargy and depression, similar to that observed in previous learned-helplessness studies. Children who considered themselves able to learn, however, spent very little time making attributions of any kind. Rather, they spent their time constructively self-m
onitoring and self-instructing. Helpless children looked backward to the cause of their failure, while learning-oriented children looked forward to remedies for failure.
Goals and Perceived Ability
Dweck and Elliot (1983) discussed and illustrated performance and learning goals, showing that the type of goal an individual chooses is largely based on that person's theory of the nature of intelligence. Intelligence can be seen as a stable entity, a fixed, pre-determined level of ability; intelligence can also be seen as instrumental, the sum of a person's skills and knowledge, and incremental, in that skills and knowledge can be increased. Performance goals prove the subject's ability, assuming that ability is a stable entity, and derive from an entity theory of intelligence. Learning goals improve the subject's ability, assuming that ability is an evolving state, and derive from an instrumental-incremental theory of intelligence.
The choice between performance goals and learning goals therefore is based on the subject's conceptualization of his or her ability. A subject whose perceived ability is static is vulnerable to the helpless pattern; whereas a subject whose perceived ability is dynamic is open to the learning-oriented pattern. Choice of tasks and persistence are both affected by one's goal-orientation and therefore by perceived ability. Children who are oriented toward learning goals face challenges instead of avoiding them and use failure as a signal to intensify their efforts or improve their strategy. They risk failure in order to increase their skills and abilities.
Elliot and Dweck's (1988) hypotheses were that students who were influenced to adopt a performance goal would react differently, both in their choice of task (by difficulty level) and in their response to failure, from students who had been influenced to adopt a learning goal. Four experimental contrasts were set up: each child was given feedback that his/her current skill level on the experimental task was either low or high; each child heard task instructions that emphasized either a performance or a learning goal. Dependent variables were choice of tasks in a range of difficulty levels, performance during difficulty, and spontaneous verbalizations during difficulty. Subjects were 101 fifth-grade children, divided as equally as possible by gender and among the four experimental cells.
Of Elliot and Dweck's four groups of subjects-performance goal/low-ability feedback, performance goal/high-ability feedback, learning goal/low-ability feedback, and learning goal/high-ability feedback-only subjects who fell into the performance-oriented/low-ability group behaved with learned helplessness. These children were more often apt to choose performance-oriented tasks at a moderately easy level; none chose the moderately hard level task. As the testing sequence went on, children in this group tended to deteriorate in terms of their problem-solving strategies, a result which replicated the Diener and Dweck findings for children with learned helplessness (1978, 1980). Their verbalizations showed that they attributed failure to an uncontrollable cause, such as their own lack of ability, bad luck, and experimenter unfairness.
On the other hand, members of the other three groups displayed behaviors characteristic of a learning orientation, contrasting significantly with the low-ability/performance goal group in each of the dependent variables. Especially, they improved in problem-solving strategy at much higher rates than the low-ability/performance goal group, indicating that the performance goal orientation creates the self-fulfilling prophesy of failure the characteristic of learned helplessness.
Smiley and Dweck (1994) found that even preschoolers aged four and five are vulnerable to learned helplessness. The preschoolers' goal orientations were categorized as oriented toward learning or performance, based on their preference for a challenging or non-challenging task. Consistent with previous studies of older children and adults, the preschoolers' goal orientations were independent of ability and predicted cognitions and emotions during failure. As the learned-helplessness model predicts, children with a learning orientation displayed mastery-oriented patterns of behavior regardless of confidence level. With a performance orientation, children who perceived themselves to have a low level of ability were more susceptible to learned-helplessness behaviors. Smiley and Dweck's (1994) findings show that goal orientations emerge very early in children and that these early manifestations of goal orientations exhibit the same influences over behavior as in older children an
d adults (Troop and Treasure, 1997; Kelley, 1986; Winefield, 1979; Rodriguez, 1997; O'Gorman, 1993; Gobet, 1992; Sahoo and Tripathy, 1990).
APPLICATIONS TO MARKETING COMMUNICATION
Task selection is a dependent variable which is most often seen in the goal-oriented studies of the learned helplessness literature, and which is highly adaptable to the specific concerns of mass communication, advertising, and marketing. This is supported by communication-oriented theorists whose research indicates that consumers learn to move through a series of stages starting at the point of ignorance about the product or service to its ultimate purchase (Barry, 1987). The present study therefore contains a task-selection component in that subjects in the various treatment conditions are asked to select a seminar from the three advertisements which each subject was shown. The task selection of a relationship seminar was used in this study to both involve the subjects and to divert the subjects attention from the true purpose of this study.
In this first set of hypotheses, it is theorized that the various combinations of goal orientations (performance and learning) and perceived ability (high and low) will affect the task selection of the individuals.
Performance Seminar
Performance goals, according to Elliott and Dweck (1988), produce different effects based on whether the individual perceives himself or herself to be of high or low ability in the salient area. Individuals perceiving themselves to be of high-ability will select tasks to display that ability (Dweck and Elliott, 1983; Burhans and Dweck, 1995; Dweck and Bempechat, 1983; Elliott and Dweck, 1988). Given this evidence, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1 - A greater percentage of subjects who received the high-ability feedback and the performance goal will select the performance seminar than the percentage of subjects who:
A) received the learning goal
C) received the low-ability feedback and the performance goal
H2 - A greater percentage of subjects who received the high-ability feedback and the performance goal will select the performance seminar than the percentage of subjects who received the high-ability feedback and the performance goal and selected the:
A) learning seminar.
C) humiliation-avoidance seminar.
Learning Seminar
Whether the individual is of high or low perceived ability is irrelevant when a learning goal is adopted because the individual is not focussed on judgements of his/her current ability but on the acquisition of new skills. Indeed, low current ability may make skill acquisition even more desirable (Burhans and Dweck, 1995; Brunstein and Olbrich, 1985; Dweck and Elliott, 1983; Dweck and Bempechat, 1983; Elliott and Dweck, 1988; Smiley and Dweck, 1994). Given this evidence, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H3 - A greater percentage of subjects who received the learning goal will select the learning seminar than the percentage of subjects who:
A) received the low-ability feedback and the performance goal.
C) received the high-ability feedback and the performance goal.
H4 - A greater percentage of subjects who received the learning goal will select the learning seminar than the percentage of subjects who received the learning goal and selected the:
A) performance seminar.
C) humiliation-avoidance seminar.
Humiliation-Avoidance Seminar
If the individual has a performance goal and perceives himself or herself to be of low ability, then he or she develops a learned-helplessness response. When confronted with the need to select a task, the individual will, "sacrifice learning and choose moderately easy task to avoid display of incompetence" (Elliott and Dweck, 1988, p.6). Other studies produced similar findings (Dweck and Elliott, 1983; Dweck and Bempechat, 1983; Brunstein and Olbrich, 1985; Smiley and Dweck, 1994). Given this evidence, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H5 - A greater percentage of subjects who received the low-ability feedback and the performance goal will select the humiliation-avoidance seminar than the percentage of subjects who:
A) received the learning goal
C) received the high-ability feedback and the performance goal.
H6 - A greater percentage of subjects who received the low-ability feedback and the performance goal will select the humiliation-avoidance seminar than the percentage of subjects who received the low-ability feedback and the performance goal and selected the:
A) learning seminar.
C) performance seminar.
Research Methods
Research Design
In this study, there were four experimental conditions: feedback that the subject's current skill level on the experimental task (their ability to have intimate relationships) was either high or low was crossed with task instructions that highlighted the value of either a performance goal (looking competent) or a learning goal (increasing one's ability).
Independent Variables
Perceived Level of Ability
A relationship potential inventory was not actually used for the analysis of this study. Its purpose in the study was to act as an instrument for the manipulation of the subjects' perceptions of their intimacy ability levels. Nevertheless, the Relationship Potential Inventory is a legitimate psychological measure (Treadwell, 1981; Amidon, Kumar, and Treadwell, 1983) which reflects feelings and attitudes that people have toward others and relationships with others. Specifically, this measure is concerned with attitudes toward closeness, intimacy, and trust.
The relationship potential inventory supposedly measured the subjects' capacity for closeness, intimacy, and trust. The measure used 5-point Likert scales where 1 represented "Strongly Disagree" and 5 represented "Strongly Agree." Some of the statements were presented in positive form and some in negative form to avoid a set response bias.
Before the subjects made any task selections, they received manipulated feedback evaluating their performance on the relationship potential inventory (their skill level on the experimental task). A randomly selected half of the subjects were told that the pre-test questionnaire revealed that they currently have a high capacity for a meaningful relationship (a score of 80 or higher on a 100 point scale). No middle scores were assigned to any of the students. The other half were told that they currently have a low capacity for a meaningful relationship (a score of 20 or lower on a 100 point scale). In this way, perceived level of ability to form relationships was manipulated.
Goals
The two goals, performance-oriented and learning-oriented, were induced by exposure to mass communication in the form of public-service announcements (PSAs). The performance-oriented PSA showed a blurred image of men leaping hurdles. The headline read, "Magnificent. Mundane. You can only choose one." The body copy stressed that performance was the only measure of worth. A line written in small type said that this public-service announcement was from the Wisconsin Department of Education.
The learning-oriented PSA presented a blurred image of a solitary man running up steps. The headline stated, "In difficulty lie the seeds of learning." In smaller type, the text advised the students not to worry about mistakes or failure, but to use each opportunity to grow and acquire new skills. As on the performance-oriented PSA, the Wisconsin Department of Education was identified as the sponsor. (See Appendix for ad stimuli)
These two public-service announcements, as well as three seminar advertisements, were professionally produced for this study. The public-service announcements advocated either a learning orientation or a performance orientation as a means to manipulate subjects' goals. A randomly selected half of the subjects were shown the learning-oriented PSA, and half were shown the performance-oriented PSA. They were then instructed to fill out a manipulation check, and give their opinion of the PSA on a scale composed of 11 Likert scale items.
All of the subjects were then given a choice of three seminars designed to hone their skills in forming and maintaining a relationship. The seminars were advertised by brochures that matched product selection to induced goals. The first ad was written in terms of learning goals (i.e., there are risks of mistakes and confusion during the learning process, but the seminar will promote skill development). The second ad was written in terms of performance goals (i.e., the seminar will allow the subject to display proficiency). The third ad was written in terms of humiliation-avoidance (i.e. the seminar will allow the subject to participate in a completely risk-free environment). Subjects were then given manipulation checks, asked their opinions of the ad, asked their opinion of the seminar and asked their expectations of how well they would do in the seminar for each of the three seminar ads.
Dependent Variables
Product Selection
First the subjects were exposed to either the learning- or performance-oriented PSA and were informed that their relationship potential score was either high or low. They were then asked to examine the three relationship seminar brochures and asked "which of the relationship seminars would you be most likely to pick if you were required to take one next semester, tuition free?"
Sample
Subjects for this experiment were undergraduates enrolled in an introductory advertising course at a large Midwestern University. A total of 135 students provided at least 32 subjects for each of the 4 combinations of the treatment factors (performance/high-ability N = 32, performance/low ability N = 34, learning/high-ability N = 35, learning/low-ability N = 34). Subjects were recruited in a procedure that complied with the ethical guidelines of the University Human Subjects Committee.
Data Collection Procedures
In class, the subjects were asked to sign up for one of 14 session times. As a guise, the subjects were told that the study was about relationships. They were given a pre-test questionnaire to be filled out at their convenience and to be returned the morning of their session. The main objective of the pretest questionnaire was to have subjects complete the Relationship Potential Inventory. Scores on the Inventory, assigned randomly, provided feedback on ability for subjects. The subjects were also asked to fill out a consent form.
In the sessions, subjects were given their relationship potential inventory scores and the second questionnaire. They were allowed as much time as they needed to read and sign the consent form and to examine their scores from the relationship potential inventory. The second questionnaire contained advertising stimuli and further measures. Specifically, subjects were asked to spend a minute and a half reading a public-service announcement. Time allowed to read the PSAs and ads was constrained because recall measures were taken, and recall is influenced by time allowed for message exposure.
After the respondents spent as much time as they needed to fill out the questions related to the PSA, they were asked to spend a full minute reading each seminar advertisement. The rest of the questionnaire was filled out at the subject's own pace. Upon the completion of the second questionnaire, the subjects were thanked, added to the extra credit list and asked to look for the upcoming debriefing in their class.
During the debriefing, the researcher gave a talk which explained the exact purpose, procedures, and hypotheses of the study. Subjects were also informed of the random nature of feedback they received on their relationship potential. They were invited to ask any questions that immediately occurred to them or to meet the researcher who would be waiting after class if they felt they would like to discuss the study further, privately. The subjects were also handed a debriefing statement which summarized the purpose of the study and the nature of the relationship potential inventory.
Results
Sample Description
The demographics of the student sample were as follows: The majority of the subjects (92%) were between the ages of 19 and 21. Most of the subjects were female (78%), communications majors (65%), sophomores (54%) or juniors (35%), single (99%), not employed (57%) and white (92%).
Manipulation Checks
Manipulation checks were run on the independent variables as embedded in the advertising stimuli and relationship feedback to ensure that the subjects perceived the manipulations as they were designed for this study. The three stimuli that were manipulated were the public-service announcements; the results of the relationship potential inventory; and the learning, performance, and humiliation-avoidance ads.
Goal Orientation: Learning or Performance
The PSA messages were written to reflect either a learning goal or a performance goal. Subjects exposed to the performance PSA therefore should agree that it strongly reflects the statement "Perform well and show the world what you can do." By contrast, these same subjects should not feel that it strongly reflects the statement "Learn even though it involves confusion and difficulty." Similarly, subjects exposed to the learning PSA should strongly agree that it reflects the statement "Learn even though it involves confusion and difficulty." They should not agree that it reflects the statement "Perform well and show the world what you can do."
Indeed, subjects who saw the performance PSA did agree more strongly with the statement "Perform well and show the world what you can do" (mean=4.62) than they did with the statement "Learn even though it involves confusion and difficulty" (mean=2.58, t=12.72, df=65, p(.001). Also according to prediction, subjects who saw the learning PSA agreed more strongly with the statement "Learn even though it involves confusion and difficulty" (mean=4.59) than they did with the statement "Perform well and show the world what you can do" (mean=3.99, t=-3.74, df=67, p(.001).
The statement "Perform well and show the world what you can do" should be perceived as fitting the performance PSA better than the learning PSA. The reverse should also be true - subjects who saw the learning PSA should agree that it reflects the statement "Learn even through it involves confusion and difficulty" to a greater extent than subjects who compare the statement with the performance PSA.
As expected, subjects who saw the performance PSA agreed more strongly that it reflected the statement "Perform well and show the world what you can do" (mean = 4.62) than subjects who saw the learning PSA believed the learning PSA reflected the same statement (mean = 3.99), (F=15.31, p(.001). The subjects who saw the learning PSA agreed more strongly that it reflected the statement "Learn even though it involves confusion and difficulty" (mean = 4.59) than subjects who saw the performance PSA (mean = 2.58) (F=38.38, p(.001).
Ability Feedback: Relationship Potential
Subjects were told that the relationship potential inventory measured their capacity for closeness, intimacy, and trust. This measurement was given to the subjects in the pre-test and their score (randomly assigned) was revealed before they took the post-test in order to manipulate their belief that their ability to have a meaningful relationship was high or low. After seeing the score they received from the test, the subjects were asked to assign themselves the relationship potential score that they should have received. If subjects internalized the feedback, it should impact their beliefs about their ability. Subjects who were told that they have a low capacity to have a meaningful relationship should self-assign a lower potential relationship score than those who were told that they have a high capacity, and vice versa.
As predicted, there was a significant difference between the beliefs of subjects given high-ability feedback and the beliefs of subjects given low-ability feedback. Those subjects who were assigned a lower score from the relationship potential did self-assign a lower score (mean = 61.97) than those who were assigned a higher score (mean = 82.88) (F=38.89, p(.001).
Learning, Performance, and Humiliation-Avoidance Ads
Three ads presented three types of orientations: learning, performance, and humiliation-avoidance. After the ads were presented, a manipulation check measured the subjects' perceptions of the ad's orientation.
Each ad should have elicited a significantly higher score than the other two ads on the item in the manipulation check corresponding to its goal orientation.
Indeed, agreement with the performance-manipulation item ("Perform well and show the world what you can do") was higher for the performance ad (mean = 3.79) than it was for the learning ad (mean=3.36) or the humiliation-avoidance ad (mean = 3.12). The results were significantly different when the performance ad was compared to both the learning ad (t = 3.39, p ( .001) and the humiliation-avoidance ad (t = 4.91, p ( .001).
The learning-manipulation item ("Learn even though it involves confusion and difficulty") also fared well, earning greater agreement for the learning ad (mean = 3.79) than it did for the performance ad (mean = 3.38) and the humiliation-avoidance ad (mean = 3.41). The results were significantly different when the learning ad was compared to both the performance ad (t = -3.69, p ( .001) and humiliation-avoidance ad (t = 2.85, p ( .005).
The humiliation-avoidance manipulation item ("Maintain self esteem by avoiding embarrassment") earned greater agreement for the humiliation-avoidance ad (mean = 4.42) than it did for the performance ad (mean = 2.79) or the learning ad (mean = 2.50). The results were significant when the humiliation-avoidance ad was compared to both the performance ad (t = -12.06, p ( .001) and the learning ad (t = -14.51, p ( .001).
Hypothesis Testing
To test the hypotheses, a general 3 x 3 crosstab analysis was conducted crossing the treatment conditions (high-ability feedback and performance goal, low-ability feedback and performance goal, or both high- and low-ability feedback and learning goal) with the choice of seminar (performance, learning, or humiliation-avoidance). Chi square analysis (see table 4) showed a significant difference ((2(4, n=132)=9.47, p=.05) among treatment conditions with regards to the seminar chosen.
Performance Seminar
Hypothesis 1
To test hypothesis 1, two simple chi-square analyses were performed. The first of these analyses focused on those who received the high-ability feedback and the performance goal; these subjects were compared with those who received the learning goal regarding whether they selected the performance seminar (see table 5A). A second analysis compared those who received the high-ability feedback and the performance goal with those who received the low-ability feedback and the performance goal; this comparison was based on whether subjects in these groups selected the performance seminar (see table 5B).
When table 5A was examined, the findings were that the high-ability/performance group more often chose the performance seminar (52.9%) over the other seminars (47.1%). Moreover, the learning group more often selected the other seminars (77.3%) over the performance seminar (22.7%). These were highly significant differences ((2(1, n=100)=9.27, p=.003).
Scrutinizing table 5B revealed that the high-ability/performance group most often selected the performance seminar (52.9%) over the other seminars (47.1%) and the low-ability/performance group most often selected the other seminars (68.8%) over the performance seminar (31.3%). This difference approached significance ((2(1, n=66)=3.18, p=.062). Therefore hypothesis 1 was mostly supported.
Hypothesis 2
Two simple chi-square tests, performed exclusively on those subjects who received the high-ability feedback and the performance goal, were run to test hypothesis two. The first chi-square test compared the selection of the performance seminar to the selection of the learning seminar. The second chi-square looked at those who selected the performance seminar versus those who selected the humiliation-avoidance seminar (see table 6).
Regarding table 6, there was no significant difference between the selection of the performance seminar and the learning seminar ((2(1, n=32)=.50, p=.480). It also reveals a significant difference between the selection of the performance seminar and the humiliation-avoidance seminar ((2(1, n=20)=12.80, p ( .001). Therefore, hypothesis two was partially supported.
Learning Seminar
Hypothesis 3
In regard to the testing of hypothesis three, a simple chi-square analysis was performed (see table 7A), in which those who received the learning goal were compared with those who received the low-ability feedback and the performance goal regarding whether they selected the learning seminar. Then a second simple chi-square analysis (see table 7B) compared those who received the learning goal to those who received the high-ability feedback and the performance goal to see whether they selected the learning seminar.
Consideration of table 7A shows that those in the learning group selected the learning seminar (65.2%) over the other seminars (34.8%). This was also true, however, of the low-ability/performance group, who preferred the learning seminar (59.4%) over the other seminars (40.6%). The learning group's selection was not significantly different from the performance/low ability group's selection ((2(1, N=98)=.309, p=.367).
In regards to table 7B, those in the learning group selected the learning seminar (65.2%) over the other seminars (34.8%). Those in the high-ability/performance group selected the other seminars (58.8%) over the learning seminar (41.2%). Selection by the learning group was significantly different from selection by the performance/high ability group ((2(1, N=100)=5.26, p=.019), as predicted. Hypothesis three therefore received partial support.
Hypothesis 4
Two chi-square analyses were performed to examine hypothesis 4. Both of these analyses were performed exclusively on subjects who received the learning goal. In the first chi square test, the selection of the learning seminar is compared to the selection of the performance seminar. In the next chi square test, there is a comparison between the selection of the learning seminar and the selection of the humiliation-avoidance seminar (see table 8).
Table 8 showed that those subjects who received the learning treatment condition selected the learning seminar more often than they selected the performance seminar ((2(1, N=58)=13.52, p ( .001). The learning seminar is selected more often by this group than they selected the humiliation-avoidance seminar ((2(1, N=51)=24.02, p ( .001). In both tests, there was a significant difference. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is supported.
Humiliation-Avoidance Seminar
Hypothesis 5
In the examination of hypothesis five, two simple chi-square analyses compared subject groups relative to their choice of seminar. First (see table 9A), the choice of the humiliation-avoidance seminar was compared between subjects who received the low-ability feedback and the performance goal and subjects who received the learning goal. Second (see table 9B), subjects who received the performance goal were analyzed regarding their choice of the performance seminar, comparing the choices of those who received the low-ability feedback with the choices of those who received the high-ability feedback.
When table 9A is examined we see that those in the low-ability/performance group selected other seminars (90.6%) over the humiliation-avoidance seminar (9.4%). This was also true of the learning group, who selected other seminars (87.9%) over the humiliation-avoidance seminar (12.1%). There is no significant difference in seminar selections between these two groups ((2(1, N=98)=.16, p=.488).
In regard to table 9B, those in the low-ability/performance group selected other seminars (90.6%) over the humiliation-avoidance seminar (9.4%). The high-ability/performance group reflected the same pattern, with 94.1% selecting other seminars and 5.9% selecting the humiliation-avoidance seminar: ((2(1, N=66)=.29, p=.471). Therefore, hypothesis five was not supported.
Hypothesis 6
In hypothesis 6 (see table 10), those who received the low-ability feedback and the performance goal were examined in regard to whether they selected the humiliation-avoidance seminar over either the learning seminar or the performance seminar. To perform these examinations, chi square tests were performed.
Examination of table 10 showed that those subjects who were exposed to the low-ability feedback and performance goal selected the learning seminar more often than the humiliation-avoidance seminar ((2(1, N=22)=11.64, p = .001).
This table also shows that the performance seminar was selected more often than the humiliation avoidance seminar ((2(1, N=13)=3.77, p=.052). Although both of these chi square tests have significant differences, the humiliation-avoidance seminar was not the favored seminar as predicted by hypothesis six. Therefore, hypothesis 6 was not supported.
Discussion
Summary of Main Findings
The high-ability/performance goal group selected the performance seminar more often than did either the learning group or the low-ability/performance goal group. Within the high-ability/performance goal group, subjects selected the performance seminar in higher percentages than the humiliation-avoidance seminar but not in higher percentages than the learning seminar.
The learning group selected the learning seminar in preference to the other two seminars, much more than either the performance or humiliation-avoidance seminar. Nor were they alone in their preference. As is clear from the Appendix, the low-ability/performance group selected the learning seminar in almost the same percentages as the learning group. The learning group did, however, prefer the learning seminar more than the performance group did.
The findings with regard to seminar selection suggest that goals can indeed drive product choice. Despite the broad appeal of the learning seminar, subjects who were confident in their ability and had been exposed to a performance goal showed inclination to select a performance-oriented product.
By contrast, the humiliation-avoidance seminar was unpopular with the learning group, the high-ability/ performance group, and most particularly, the low-ability/performance group. To revisit the Appendix, the results showed that even the low-ability/performance group preferred the learning seminar over either the performance or humiliation-avoidance seminars, though they were expected to select the humiliation-avoidance seminar because it promised to avoid any feelings of humiliation in the display of low-ability performance.
The seminar which had the widest appeal among all of treatment conditions was the learning seminar. It was the most popular seminar among the learning and low ability/performance treatment conditions. Two explanations for its widespread appeal spring to mind. First, subjects in a university environment may well be predisposed to adopt a learning goal over other orientations. Second, a learning goal may genuinely appeal to a diverse audience, regardless of whether they belong to an institution of learning as did our subject population and no matter what their personal goal orientations are.
Implications
Orientation to either learning or performance goals may be a very useful approach to understanding the likelihood of success when a difficult task is undertaken (Dweck and Elliot, 1983; Nicholls, 1984; Elliot and Dweck, 1988). The results of the present study suggest that it is a useful approach to understanding task selection even when the task is not difficult. Each of the goal orientations seems to run off a different "program" with different commands, decision rules, and definitions of achievement. As a result, there are different behavioral consequences. Each goal, in a sense, creates and organizes its own world - each calling forth different behaviors.
In the world of mass communication, our results have far-reaching implications. The wide popularity of learning-oriented messages indicates that when lifestyle change is desired, an appeal to gradual, developing change is most effective. Current campaigns for such products as Weight Watchers and Nicorette are based on the notion that lifestyle change, while producing pleasant and not too long-delayed results, occurs in stages or over a period of continued product use. Besides appealing to a learning goal-orientation, these messages coincide with those which consumers are receiving from other sources such as health experts on talk shows and feature news items. Suggestions for life-improving actions from a learning orientation, whether placed in ad-like public-service announcements or presented in a news or talk format, are framed in the most widely acceptable format for whatever goal orientation the individual audience member has adopted.
Limitations
The limitations were predictable results of conventional experimental design: its inevitable artificiality and limited subject population. Although these aspects of experimental design are of real concern to those who would like to generalize experimental results to a larger advertising and marketing environment, they do not create insurmountable barriers to generalizability. The fact that subjects were exposed only once to the PSAs intended to influence their goal orientations was a limitation of this study, as was the single exposure to the products of the ads. The lack of continual exposure in varied contexts, which is particularly characteristic of mass communication, would presumably limit the effectiveness of the message. Yet, the effects were demonstrated despite these constraints.
Bibliography
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Ames, C., and Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Student learning strategies and motivational processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.
Amidon, E., Kumar, V., and Treadwell, T. (1983). Measurements of intimacy attitudes: The intimacy attitude scale - revised. Journal of Personality Assessment, 635-639.
Barry, T. (1987). The Development of the Hierarchy of Effects: An historical perspective. In Leigh, J., and Martin, C. (Eds.) Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 10, 251-296.
Baucom, D. (1983). Sex role identity and the decision to regain control among women: A learned helplessness investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(2), 334-353.
Blumenfeld, P. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and expanding Goal Theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 272-281.
Brunstein, J., and Olbrich, E. (1985). Personal helplessness and action control: Analysis of achievement-related cognitions, self-assessments, and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1540-1551.
Burhans, K., and Dweck, C. (1995). Helplessness in early childhood: The role of contingent worth. Child Development, 66, 1719-1738.
Diener, C., and Dweck, C. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions after failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 451-462.
Dweck, C. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 674-685.
Dweck, C.. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Dweck, C., and Bempechat, J. (1983). Children's theories of intelligence: Consequences for learning. In S. Paris, G. Olson, and H. Stevenson (eds.) Learning and Motivation in the Classroom, 239-256. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dweck C., and Elliot, E. (1983). Achievement motivation. In E. Hetherington (ed.) Socialization, Personality, and Social Development, 643-691. New York: Wiley.
Dweck, C., and Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273.
Elliott, E., and Dweck, C. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5-12.
Gerbner, G. and Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 173-199.
Gobet, F. (1992). Learned helplessness in chess players: The importance of task similarity and the role of skill. Psychological Research, 54(1), 38-43.
Harackiewicz, J., Barron, K., and Elliot, A. (1998). Rethinking Achievement Goals: When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist, 33(1), 1-21.
Hayes, J. (1992). Expectations regarding the controllability of outcomes in organizations. Management decision, 30(6), 156-166.
Kankus, R. F., and Cavalier, R. P. (1995). Combating organizationally induced helplessness. Quality Progress, 28(12), 89-92.
Katz, D. (1994). Just Do It. New York: Random House.
Kelley, S. (1986). Learned helplessness in the sexually abused child. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 9(3), 193-207.
Kohli, A. K., Shervani, T. A., and Challagalla, G. N. (1998). Learning and performance orientation of salespeople: The role of supervisors. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(2), 263-274.
La Forge, M. C. (1989). Learned helplessness as explanation of consumer complaint behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(5), 359-367.
Levine, G. (1977). "Learned helplessness" and the evening news. Journal of Communication, Autumn, 100-105.
Levine, G. (1986). Learned helplessness in local TV news. Journalism Quarterly, 63(1), 12-18, 23.
Martinko, M. J. (1981). Break the pattern of learned helplessness. Training, 18(8), 110-113.
Martinko, M. J. and Gardner, W. (1982). Learned helplessness: An alternative explanation for performance deficits. Academy of Management Review, 7(2), 195-105.
Meece, J., Blumenfeld, P., and Hoyle, R. (1988). Students' goal orientation and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523.
Mikulincer, M. (1988). Freedom of choice, control, and learned helplessness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7(2-3), 203-213.
Nicholls, J. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.
O'Gorman, P. (1993). Codependency explored: A social movement in search of definition and treatment. Psychiatric Quarterly, 64(2), 199-212.
O'Keefe, G. (1985). "Taking a bite out of crime": The impact of a public information campaign. Communication Research, 12, 147-178.
O'Keefe, G. and Reid, K. (1990). The uses and effects of public service advertising. In Grunig J. and Grunig, L. (eds.) Public Relations Research Annual, 2, 67-91. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum..
Pasick, R., and Wallack, L. (1988). Mass media in health promotion: A compilation of expert opinion. Unpublished manuscript, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkley, CA.
Pintrich, P., and Schunk, D. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ray, D. W. (1988). Learned helplessness: How managers can encourage helplessness. Manage, 39(4), 33-34.
Rodriguez, Y. G. (1997). Learned helplessness or expectancy-value? A psychological model for describing the experiences of different categories of unemployed people. Journal of Adolescence 20(3), 321-332.
Sahoo, F., and Tripathy, S. (1990). Learned helplessness in industrial employees: A study of non-contingency, satisfaction and motivation deficits. Psychological Studies, 35(2), 79-87.
Seligman, M. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco: Freeman.
Seligman, M. (1991). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life. New York: Pocket Books.
Shafer, B. and Larson, R. (1972). Did TV create the social issue? Columbia Journalism Review, Sep/Oct., 10-17.
Smiley, P., and Dweck, C. (1994). Individual differences in achievement goals among young children. Child Development, 65, 1723-1743.
Smith, S. (1997). The effective use of fear appeals in persuasive immunization: An analysis of national immunization intervention messages. Journal of applied Communication Research 25 (4), 264-292.
Spence, J., and Helmreich, R. (1983). Achievement-related motives and behaviors. In Spence, J.T. (Ed.). Achievement and Achievement motives: Psychological and Sociological Approaches (pp. 7-74). San Francisco: Freeman.
Troop, N. A. and Treasure, J. L. (1997). Setting the scene for eating disorders: II. Childhood helplessness and mastery. Psychological Medicine, 27(3), 531-538.
University of Wisconsin-Madison. (1996). Guidelines for human subject research. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison L&S Human Subject Committee.
Walker, J. M. (1992). Workers' compensation and the learned helplessness paradigm. Society of Chartered Property and Casualty Underwriters Journal, 45(2), 93-97.
Winefield, H. (1979). Helplessness and control of childhood events in depressed and normal women. Australian Journal of Psychology, 31(2), 119-123.
Appendix
Table of Hypotheses, Measurements and Support
Hypothesis
Explanation
Measurement
Support
Seminar Selection
Performance Seminar
H1
A greater percentage of subjects who received the high-ability feedback and saw the performance goal will select the performance seminar than the percentage of subjects who:
A) saw the learning goal
C) received the low-ability feedback and saw the performance goal.
Tables 5
A-B
Crosstabs and Chi-Squares
Mostly Supported
H2
A greater percentage of subjects who received the high-ability feedback and saw the performance goal will select the performance seminar than the percentage of subjects who received the high-ability feedback and saw the performance goal and selected the:
A) learning seminar.
C) humiliation-avoidance seminar.
Table 6
Chi-Squares
Partly
Supported
Learning Seminar
H3
A greater percentage of subjects who received the learning goal will select the learning seminar than the percentage of subjects who:
A) received the low-ability feedback and saw the performance goal.
C) received the high-ability feedback and saw the performance goal.
Tables 7
A-B
Crosstabs and Chi-Squares
Partly Supported
H4
A greater percentage of subjects who received the learning goal will select the learning seminar than the percentage of subjects who received the learning goal and selected the:
A) performance seminar.
C) humiliation-avoidance seminar.
Table 8
Chi-Squares
Supported
Humiliation Avoidance Seminar
H5
A greater percentage of subjects who received the low-ability feedback and the performance goal will select the humiliation-avoidance seminar than the percentage of subjects who:
A) received the learning goal
C) received the high-ability feedback and saw the performance goal.
Tables 9
A-B
Crosstabs and Chi-Squares
Not Supported
H6
A greater percentage of subjects who received the low-ability feedback and the performance goal will select the humiliation-avoidance seminar than the percentage of subjects who received the low-ability feedback and the performance goal and selected the:
A) learning seminar.
C) performance seminar.
Table 10
Chi-Squares
Not Supported
Table 4
Hypotheses 1 through 6
Crosstabulation
Selection of Seminars Based Upon Goal Orientation and Perceived Ability
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Table 5A - Hypothesis 1A
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Table 5B - Hypothesis 1B
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Table 6 - Hypothesis 2A
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Table 6 - Hypothesis 2B
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Table 7A - Hypothesis 3A
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Table 7B - Hypothesis 3B
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Table 8 - Hypothesis 4A
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Table 8 - Hypothesis 4B
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Table 9A - Hypothesis 5A
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Table 9B - Hypothesis 5B
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Table 10 - Hypothesis 6A
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Table 10 - Hypothesis 6B
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]