The effects of current unsatisfactory performance and evaluative approach on improvement expectancy and commitment to improvement

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of current unsatisfactory performance (CUP) on improvement expectancy (IE) and commitment to improvement (CTI). 118 high school students were randomly assigned to consider either current satisfactory performance (CSP) or CUP. In addition, students within each group were randomly assigned to one of two evaluative approaches: (1) dichotomous present-focused evaluation (“Are you succeeding in this area? Or not?”), or (2) historical success scaling (“What is the highest level of success that you have reached in this area?”). It was hypothesised that (relative to CSP) CUP has a negative effect on improvement expectancy (IE). This hypothesis was supported. In addition, the data were consistent with an inconsistent mediation hypothesis according to which CUP has a positive direct effect on CTI but a negative indirect effect through reduced IE. The indirect effect of CUP on CTI was expected to be less negative amongst students engaging in historical success scaling than amongst students engaging in dichotomous present-focused evaluation. Although this was indeed the case, a test of moderated mediation indicated that the conditional indirect effects did not differ statistically. The study helps to illuminate the conflicting effects of CUP on CTI. Findings also have important implications for cognitive-behavioural and solution-focused approaches, both of which champion “scaling.”

The Effect of Solution-Focused Scaling and Solution-Focused Questions on Expectancy and Commitment

“…Solutionfocused approaches have often been used with students at this level (Franklin et al, 2008;Green et al, 2007;Young & Holdorf, 2003). In addition, the only previous experimental study of SF scaling also involved secondary school students (Abdulla & Woods, 2021). Focusing on this age range enabled us to build on previous research.…”

“…This means that the impact of scaling cannot be assessed. Given the centrality of scaling in SF interventions, it seems extraordinary that only one experimental study focusing on scaling appears to have been published (Abdulla & Woods, 2021). In that study, school students aged 13-14 were asked to identify an unsatisfactory (or satisfactory) area of performance.…”

“…However, the "advantage" of scaling was extremely small and not statistically different from zero. Abdulla and Woods (2021) therefore suggested that scaling may not be as effective as SF theorists suppose. However, they tested only a single success-scaling question.…”

“…The present study investigated the effects of solution-focused "success scaling" and follow-up questions on students' IE and CTI. These variables were operationalised in a manner consistent with the only previous (experimental) study of scaling (Abdulla & Woods, 2021). IE was operationalised as students' perceived likelihood of improving performance and CTI was operationalised as self-reported commitment to improve performance.…”

“…IE was operationalised as students' perceived likelihood of improving performance and CTI was operationalised as self-reported commitment to improve performance. Following the approach taken by Abdulla and Woods (2021), the present study asked students to consider an area in which they were not performing as well as they would have liked. In SF practice, scaling is typically accompanied by additional scaling-related questions (e.g., "What could you do to go up one point?).…”