Prevention Vs. Promotion
Learning Strategies:
Prevention versus Promotion
Blas Estrada
Composition 300, Section 4
Professor Ryan
March 21, 2010
Learning Strategies:
Prevention versus Promotion
Abstract:
Much of the world considers education at the forefront of many political agendas and government priorities. Yet, as programs are implemented many may be approaching the advancement of young minds with an incorrect format or teaching style. How can this be? Past studies by accredited universities and trusted professors/researchers have shed light on the types of motivations affecting one’s learning. The two motivations at play of course being promotion(eager) versus prevention(vigilant). A promotion based learning style is one of which the subject focuses on hopes of attaining a specific goal. This hope pulls the subject to target in on maximizing understanding through attaining new information, a focus on gains/non-gains. Alternatively, a prevention based learning style is one in which the subject focuses on fulfilling a specific goal out of obligation. This obligation pushes the subject to focus on maintaining current levels of understanding and to completely interpret new information correctly without confusion, a focus on losses/non-losses. It is this author’s belief that promotion strategy is a more effective learning style than prevention strategy.
Learning Strategies: promotion versus prevention
Urdan and Mestas (2006) conducted a study title, “The Goals Behind Performance Goals,” this study involved fifty three high school students of which were asked about their reasons for their pursuit of performance goals within academic studies. These reasons were then coded into four categories, of which are, appearance-approach, appearance-avoidance, competition-approach, and competition-avoidance. The research revealed that there are many reasons behinds a students desire to achieve and no one reason can be the sole cause (p. 354-362). Urdan and Mestas stated, “Although the results of this study clearly demonstrate that there were a variety of reasons for pursuing performance goals in this sample, it is not clear whether or how these results should be interpreted regarding the meaning and effects of performance goals” (p. 362). So although, many reasons are given for performance goals either approach or avoidance the meanings and effects of performance goals are still unclear. The study, of which, explored the many reasons behind performance goals did provide some helpful information.
For both the appearance-approach and the competitive-approach the reasons given by students were one’s mostly of attainment and not maintenance, such as, “want to stand out,” “want to make family proud,” and, “want to look smart.” This is in contrast to appearance-avoidance and competitive-avoidance which included statements such as, “do not want others to think less of me,” “do not want to look bad,” and “do not want to do worse than other students.” (Uridan & Mestas p. 360). The appearance-avoidance and competitive avoidance have shown that they are goal maintenance oriented in the sense that the subject would rather maintain current levels of their outward show of intelligence. Subjects who exhibited appearance-approach and competitive-approach show more of an eager strategy in that they want to attain an ideal of where they feel their status should be within the class. Uridan and Mestas state, “Most existing research demonstrates that when students adopt a performance-avoidance foal, either through experimental manipulation or self-report, subsequent effort and achievement suffer” (p. 362). This reason then points to this paper’s claim and strengthens it. Uridan and Mestas show that performance goal avoidance is one that wishes to maintain current status of which may inhibit the subject.
Brodscholl, Kober, and Higgins (2007) conducted two studies of which to test the strategies subjects use in goal attainment as well as in goal maintenance. They then made the prediction that promotion focused individuals would prefer a goal attainment task; whereas, prevention focused individuals prefer goal maintenance (p 628). This goal maintenance is one in which the subject hopes to maintain their current level and to not strive for any ideal, but hold to what they feel they ought to be. Obviously, when learning something new one should hope to attain the new task and not be left behind, stagnate.
The two studies each involved tokens and a mug. In goal attainment the subject obtained 100 white tokens of which if the next task was completed could be traded for red tokens. The ultimate goal of the game was to obtain enough red tokens so they could buy the prize(a mug). The mug sold for 70 red tokens. The subjects in goal attainment showed that the promotion focused subjects fared better than prevention when valuing the end product, the mug. The subjects then applied a monetary value to the mug(p. 636).
Within the second experimentthe promotional and prevention framing manipulation was the only difference. Promotion framed manipulation required that the subjects be told that although they had not won the prize, they still could. In strong opposition of this is prevention framed manipulation. The subjects in prevention framed manipulation were told that although they were given the prize for their work in the previous study, they could still lose the mug The subjects again then applied a monetary value to the mug(p. 639-640). The results of these two studies confirmed the hypothesis originally made by the authors. Subjects who were promotion focused and placed within a attainment goal construct placed a higher value on the mug, therefore placing more desire for the mug (p. 643). This shows us that maintenance goal constructs cause a willingness to preserve the status quo. This is because the desired end-state has been accomplished.
Semin, Higgins, Montes, Estourget, and Valencia help to reiterate the point that attainment(promotion) goals are looked more to as ideals, which are harder to achieve than maintenance(prevention) goals, of which are looked to as oughts. I ought to be like this rather than I hope(ideal) to be like this. The authors state, “…the impressions provided in the descriptions from an approach perspective were judged to be more difficult to achieve and to require more time to achieve than those generated from an avoidance perspective (p. 40).” The article makes the point that approach focused people when dealing with a communication goal use more abstract language in their description as opposed to prevention focused people who use more concrete language (p. 43). This use of more abstract language points to the fact that promotion learning style allows for more intangible thinking. The concrete language enhanced by preventative learning style puts the participant in somewhat of a box of which they are unable to think outside of.
Molden and Higgins (2004) write similarly to this in their study on how categorization of uncertain vagueness or ambiguity also use eager(promotion) and vigilant avoidance(prevention) strategies. Vagueness statements are ones of very weak evidence, whereas; ambiguity statements are ones of strong, yet conflicting evidence (p. 250). The results of Molden and Higgins experiments show that when faced with vague statements, promotion focused individuals will list more categories for it, opposite of what a prevention focused subject would do. Now when facing an ambiguous statement a promotion focused subject is more likely to list very few categories, again, opposite of what a prevention focused person would do (p. 268).
Now, although this study is focused on social constraints its use on subject thought and reasoning can be applied to learning strategies. So that when a subject is faced with a vague statement(weak, but not conflicting) the subject will list many categories for that statement in the attempt to achieve the correct one. This then promotes individual research and delving in deeper, unlike prevention focused subjects who would select few categories out of fear of selecting an incorrect one.
Miele, Molden, and Gardner (2009) make a different argument in defense of vigilant avoidance, namely in the area of reading comprehension, a critical factor in learning. The authors argue, “…prevention-focused individuals are more motivated to minimize incomprehension by vigilantly resolving the inconsistencies that limit their understanding, whereas promotion-focused people appear to be more likely to read on and to wait for additional information…” (p.789). They state, “More specifically the vigilant rereading strategy employed by the prevention-focused participants led to better performance on the comprehension questions, as well as increased transfer of their comprehension to a subsequent task” (p. 791).
The study by Miele, Molden, and Gardner do not help to promote the idea that an eager strategy for a learning style is the best method, but if looked at it more closely it is possible to see why. Although reading comprehension is important within the education realm, it is but a tip on the iceberg. When using an overall learning style a promotion strategy is the one that is needed. Miele, Molden, and Gardner constricted their subjects to the confines of the reading piece they administered. There was no way to search outside sources to verify, break down, view, understand, or compare outside information to that of which was within the reading comprehension sample. This constraint in most learning activities is just not a factor; overall it is one of a promotion based learning style. Due to this it is imperative that a promotion focused and goal attainment style be implemented within the educational system.
References
Brodscholl, J., Kober, H., & Higgins, E. (2007). Strategies of self-regulation in goal attainment versus goal maintenance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(4), 628-648.
Miele, D. B., Molden, D. C., Gardner, W. L. (2009). Motivated Comprehension Regulation: Vigilant versus Eager Metacognitive Control. Memory & Cognition, 37(6), 779-795
Molden, D., & Higgins, E. (2004). Categorization Under Uncertainty: Resolving Vagueness and Ambiguity With Eager Versus Vigilant Strategies. Social Cognition, 22(2), 248-277.
Semin, G., Higgins, T., de Montes, L., Estourget, Y., & Valencia, J. (2005). Linguistic Signatures of Regulatory Focus: How Abstraction Fits Promotion More Than Prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(1), 36-45.
Urdan, T., & Mestas, M. (2006). The goals behind performance goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 354-365.