Friendship and Coping with Achievement-Related Failure Among Children

1. Coping with Achievement-Related Failure: An Examination of Conversations Between Friends Ellen Rydell Altermatt, Elizabeth Broady, & Taryn Bellgard Hanover College Funded by National Science Foundation Grant BCS-0236678

2. Responses to Achievement-Related Failure • Mastery-oriented approach (Dweck, 1986) • Maintain high expectations for future success • Report positive affect • Demonstrate persistence in the face of challenge • Learned helpless approach (Dweck, 1986) • Have diminished expectations for future success • Report negative affect • Fail to persist in the face of challenge

3. What Role Do Social Interactions Play? • Hokoda and Fincham (1995) • Mothers of mastery-oriented children were more likely to offer assistance when their children requested it. • Mothers of mastery-oriented children were less likely to respond to self-critical statements (e.g., “I can’t do it.”) by suggesting that their children discontinue the activity.

4. Why Friends? • Children spend a substantial amount of time with friends(e.g., Larson & Richards, 1991) • Children seek the support and advice of friends during times of stress (e.g., Causey & Dubow, 1992)

5. Research Questions • What are the features of children’s conversations with friends following achievement-related failure? • Are the features of children’s conversations related to changes in their responses to failure over time?

6. Participants • Fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students • 116 friendship dyads • 40 male dyads, 76 female dyads • 70% Caucasian, 14% African-American, 7% Latino

7. Procedure • Ice-breaker activity • Children worked on puzzles in separate rooms • Focal child received unsolvable puzzles • Friend received either solvable (success condition) or unsolvable puzzles (failure condition) • Children were reunited to discuss the task • Children work on a final set of solvable problems

8. Questionnaires • Mastery-Orientated Beliefs • Baseline, Post-Failure, Post-discussion • Sample Items • “I want to do the puzzles.” • “I am confident that I will do well on the puzzles.” • Reliability: αs = .81 to .91

9. Coding Children’s Conversations • Overview • 17,000 statements (κs = .71 to .99) • 8,441 focal child statements • 8,559 friend statements • 75% of statements were on-task

10. Statement Types • Performance Checks (e.g., How many [puzzles] did you solve?) • Positive Performance Statements (e.g., I got them all.) • Negative Performance Statements (e.g., I didn’t get any of mine.) • Positive Self-Evaluative Statements (e.g. I’m really good at puzzles.) • Negative Self-Evaluative Statements (e.g., I stink at puzzles.) • Discounting Statements (e.g., I’m used to doing puzzles that attach.) • Help Seeking (e.g., How do you make the diamond?) • Help Giving (e.g., Okay. Well, you just need to look for a green one.)

11. Descriptive Analyses • Mastery-oriented beliefs • Features of conversations

12. Mastery-Orientated Beliefs

13. Descriptive Analyses • Mastery-oriented beliefs • Features of conversations

14. Gender Differences in Performance Checks

15. Predicting Mastery-Oriented Beliefs • Hierarchical regression analyses • Dependent variable • Mastery-oriented beliefs at post-discussion • Control variable • Mastery-oriented beliefs at post-failure • Predictor variables • Statement type • Gender (male, female) • Condition (friend success, friend failure)

16. Predicting Mastery-Oriented Beliefs • Statement Type Main Effect • Discounting statements (FC), β= -.15, p < .01 • Help-giving statements (Friend), β= .12, p < .01

17. Predicting Mastery Orientation • Statement Type x Gender Interactions • Negative performance statements (FC), β= -.28, p < .001 • Negative self-evaluative statements (FC), β= -.19, p < .01

18. Negative Performance Statements

19. Negative Self-Evaluative Statements

20. Why the gender difference? • Sequential analyses • What happens immediately after each statement type? • Are particular sequences of statements more likely to occur with boys than with girls?

21. Sequential AnalysesNegative Performance Statements

22. Sequential AnalysesNegative Self-Evaluative Statements

23. Sample Conversation Between Girls • FC: I can’t put puzzles together. As a matter of fact I think that I may need to practice a little more. • FR: I know… This was hard. • FC: [Laughs] …. I mean, I hated it. I was like, ok do this, do this, and then she was like, ‘I’m sorry, but your time is up.’ • FR: I know, she was like, ‘It’s time for the next one.’ I was like, um. • FC: [Laughs]. Shoot! • FR: And then …. it was time for the next one. • FC: …I’m still shaking from doing it.

24. Co-RuminationRose (2002) • Co-rumination is characterized by • repeated discussion of the same problem • mutual encouragement of discussing problem • Girls are more likely to co-ruminate than are boys • Co-rumination has tradeoffs