Performance goals in conflictual social interactions: Towards the distinction between two modes of relational conflict regulation

Abstract

Socio-cognitive conflict has been defined as a situation of confrontation with a disagreeing other. Previous research suggests that individuals can regulate conflict in a relational way, namely by focusing on social comparison between relative levels of competences. Relational conflict regulation has been described as yielding particularly negative effects on social interactions and learning, but has been understudied. The present research addresses the question of the origin of relational conflict regulation by introducing a fundamental distinction between two types of regulation, one based on the affirmation of one's own point of view and the invalidation of the other's (i.e., 'competitive' regulation), the other corresponding to the protection of self-competence via compliance (i.e., 'protective' regulation). Three studies show that these modes of relational conflict regulation result from the endorsement of distinct performance goals, respectively, performance-approach goals (trying to outperform others) and performance-avoidance goals (avoiding performing more poorly than others). Theoretical implications for the literature on both conflict regulation and achievement goals are discussed.

To confirm or to conform? Performance goals as a regulator of conflict with more-competent others.

“…The former case, which corresponds to a self-confirmatory strategy (i.e., resisting others' influence; Psaltis & Duveen, 2006), has been designated in recent research as competitive relational regulation (Sommet et al, 2014). In the study of dialogical argumentation within learning dyads, this cor responds to adversarial argumentation (disputational dialogue without openness to an alternative viewpoint; Asterhan, 2013).…”

“…In the study of dialogical argumentation within learning dyads, this cor responds to adversarial argumentation (disputational dialogue without openness to an alternative viewpoint; Asterhan, 2013). The latter case, which corresponds to a mere compliance strategy (i.e., submitting to the other's influence; Quiamzade, 2007), has been designated as protective relational regulation (Sommet et al, 2014). In the study of dialogical argumentation, this corresponds to quick consensus seeking (cumulative dialogue without any critical exploration; Asterhan, 2013).…”

“…We contend that performance goals could function as a critical factor to produce these variations. Thus, by applying the idea developed above-that performance goals qualitatively impact social interactions with more competent oth ers, so that performance-approach goals lead to a dominant form of interpersonal behavior regulation, and performance-avoidance goals lead to a submissive form of interpersonal behavior regula tion-we hypothesized that in dealing with a more-competent other, (a) performance-approach goals should orient conflict reg ulation toward more agency (i.e., resistance/dominance), in other words, what Sommet et al (2014) have termed competitive con flict regulation, and (b) performance-avoidance goals should orient conflict regulation toward less agency (i.e., obedience/submission), in other words, protective conflict regulation.…”

Cooperation Versus Competition Effects on Information Sharing and Use in Group Decision‐Making

“…Social motivation is also captured by individual differences in achievement goals, in particular performance goals (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991). More specifically, group members pursuing performance-approach goals strive to demonstrate their superiority by outperforming others (Dweck, 1986) and to show that they are right while others are wrong (Sommet et al, 2014), whereas members pursuing performance-avoidance goals try to avoid being inferior to others (Elliot & McGregor, 2001) and seek consensus with others (Sommet et al, 2014).…”

“…First, competition motivates group members to avoid disconfirming their own preference. This is because people tend to react defensively when their own preferences are questioned, and especially with competitive motives (Darnon, Muller, Schrager, Pannuzzo, & Butera, 2006;De Dreu & van Knippenberg, 2005;Sommet et al, 2014). Second, competition motivates group members to avoid disconfirming others' erroneous preferences so as to impede them to find the correct decision and to keep the competitive advantage.…”