The role of dissatisfaction

I was so intrigued by the finding from Bandura & Cervone (1983) that self-dissatisfaction is predictive of performance change. The more dissatisfied individuals were with their performance, the more they improved their subsequent performance. So often we assume that success breeds success, when that is not entirely the case. This is in line with an idea from a few weeks ago that I initially found counterintuitive, which is that prior successful performance does not always predict future participation or successful performance. With this in mind, how can we optimize the negative discrepancies between standards and performance so that students are motivated? Bandura and Cervone stated that perceptions of efficacy to attain self-set standards influence whether people are motivated or discouraged by negative discrepancies. I wonder, however, how self-efficacy and motivation are influenced when the standards are set by others. In the school setting, standards of performance are determined by politics, school officials, teachers, parents, and peers. How does this influence standards that students then adopt for themselves? One area I thought the study left room for exploration on was the influence of feedback about how a peer or multiple peers had performed on the task. Since that would be more similar to conditions in the school or classroom setting, it may reveal something about how performance standards are influenced by others. A student may be satisfied with his or her performance initially, for example, but dissatisfied if told how peers performed. In the real world, there are multiple channels from which we receive feedback about performance and our initial perceptions about a performance can change when we receive more information.