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

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

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.

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)

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?

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

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

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

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

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.)

Descriptive Analyses
 Mastery-oriented beliefs
 Features of conversations

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
Mastery-Orientated Beliefs
Baseline Post-Failure Post-discussion
Male Focal Child Female Focal Child

Descriptive Analyses
 Mastery-oriented beliefs
 Features of conversations

Gender Differences in Performance Checks
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
4
3.5
3
Male Focal Child Female Focal Child

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)

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

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

Negative Performance Statements
3.5
3.25
3
2.75
2.5
2.25
2
Low (-1 SD) High (+1 SD)
% of Negative Performance Statements
Male Female

Negative Self-Evaluative Statements
3.5
3.25
3
2.75
2.5
2.25
2
Low (-1 SD) High (+1 SD)
% of Negative Self-Evaluative Statements
Male Female

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?

Sequential Analyses
Negative Performance Statements
20
16
12
8
4
0
Performance Check Positive Performance
Statement
Negative Performance
Statement
Male Friend Female Friend

Sequential Analyses
Negative Self-Evaluative Statements
8
4
0
20
16
12
Negative Self-Evaluative Statement
Male Friend Female Friend

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.

Co-Rumination
Rose (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