Interaction Effects: Trend /Initial Valence and Trend/Inconsistency

Based on the results displayed in table H-12a in appendix H (and which will only be generally discussed here as long as the p-value for coefficient <0.10; see table for actual coefficients and p-values), self-efficacy in stage 5 is more a function of initial/overall valence than trend (as compared to the reference category neutral valence and trend) because all trends in

the positive initial valence category have significant positive coefficients (Bs and betas, all p- values<0.10). On the other hand, as displayed in table H-12b (see table for values), the only combination of trend and inconsistency that has a significant effect (compared to consistent flat trend) on self-efficacy is that of consistent negative trend (negative effect, p-value <0.05).

In the case of positive affect towards self, task and feedback system, PA Self in stage 5 is higher than average for the group with neutral initial valence and trend for two groups: positive initial/overall mean valence and trend, and also positive initial/overall valence and flat/neutral trend while for PA Task, the only group higher than average is positive initial valence and positive trend, and for PA Feedback system, the only groups higher are positive and flat trend sub-groups within the positive initial valence group and positive trend in the negative

initial/overall mean valence. However, if only coefficients with p-values<0.05 are considered, PA Self is only higher for positive initial valence and positive trend and the same for PA Task and PA Feedback system. In the case of consistency and trend, the groups that are significantly different from the average in the consistent flat trend group (all p-values<0.05) for PA Self are consistent positive trend (positive effect or higher) and inconsistent negative trend (negative effect), for PA Task and PA Feedback system only consistent positive trend (positive effect).

In the case of negative affect towards self, task and feedback system, NA Self in stage 5 is higher than average (in the case of neutral initial/overall valence and trend) for all groups (positive, negative and neutral trends) within the negative initial valence while for NA Task, no group scores higher than the average of neutral valence/trend group. Finally, for NA Feedback system, the only group higher than average is the negative initial/overall valence/negative trend group. If only coefficient with p-values<0.05 are considered significant, then for NA Task and NA Feedback system do not vary (over average in the case of neutral valence and trend) with trend or valence but NA Self is only higher than the reference average for the negative and flat trends in the negative initial/overall valence category. In the case of consistency and trend, no groups are significantly different from the average in the consistent flat trend group for NA Self, NA Task and NA Feedback system.

With respect to the three attention foci studied in the SONA study, attention to task is significantly higher than average when valence and trend are both neutral in three cases/ categories or experimental groups: positive trend and positive overall valence, flat trend and positive overall valence, and flat trend and negative overall valence. Attention to self while doing

the task is significantly higher the average when trend and valence are neutral for two groups: positive initial/overall valence and positive trend, and negative initial valence and flat trend but significantly lower for the group: negative initial/overall valence and negative trend. On the other hand, attention to feedback and feedback system are, like in the case of attention to self, only higher than average (in the case of neutral trend and valence) for the group with positive

initial/overall valence and positive trend, and for the group with negative initial valence and flat trend.

However, if only coefficients with only p-values<0.05 are considered, the only group higher than average for all three attention foci is that with positive trend and positive

initial/overall valence. In the case of the experimental groups divided on the basis of consistency and trend only, attention to task and to feedback are both lower than average for inconsistent negative trend while there are no groups higher or lower than average in the case of attention to self. If only coefficient with p-values<0.05 are considered significant than attention foci do not differ in between trend and inconsistency treatment groups in the SONA experiment (that is differ from average in the case of consistent flat trend).

As for attribution and injustice perceptions, internal attribution in stage 5 is higher than reference group average for positive and flat trend groups within the positive initial /overall valence category only but lower for group with neutral initial valence and negative trend while external attribution is higher for group with negative trend and negative overall valence. Injustice perceptions, on the other hand, are lower for both positive and negative trends within the positive initial/overall valence category only and higher for group with negative valence and negative trend. When looking at coefficients with p-values lower than 0.05 only, the only groups significantly different from (higher) than reference average for internal attribution are positive and flat trends within positive valence category while the results do not change for external attribution (but barely so since coefficient p-value=0.048) and injustice perceptions.

In the case of inconsistency and trend treatments or conditions, the group with consistent positive trend is lower than reference average while the group with consistent negative trend is higher in the case of injustice perceptions while for external attribution, two groups, one with consistent positive trend and one with inconsistent flat trend are lower than reference group average with no groups higher than the reference average. Finally, for internal attribution, three groups with higher average than reference average are: inconsistent and consistent positive

trends and inconsistent flat trend. When considering only coefficients with p-values<0.05 as significant, the results in the case of differentiating between inconsistency and trend combination treatment groups, the results for injustice perceptions are the same while no group is significantly different from reference average for external attribution and internal attribution is higher than average only for positive and flat trend groups within the positive initial valence group.

For motivation, improvement intentions and learning intentions, the only treatment group (in terms of the combinations of trend and initial/overall valence) that is higher than the

reference average is that with positive valence and positive trend. However, when considering only coefficients with p-values<0.05 as significant, only the results for improvement intentions stay the same (but barely with p-value=0.048) while no groups exceed reference average for learning intentions and motivation. In the case of treatments composed of inconsistency and trend combinations, for all three outcomes, all inconsistent trends as well as consistent positive trend increase average over that of the reference group (all p-values<0.05; but inconsistent negative trend barely so with p=0.049); the only group that is not significantly different from reference group average is that of consistent negative trend. However, the model in the case of motivation is not significant (R square=3.10%, p>0.10) and the same applies in the case of the models run for trend and valence (combination) treatments for all three outcomes.

With respect to goals, standards and expectations, goals are lower than the reference group average for all trend valence groups within the negative initial/overall mean category only with the same applying to expectations but with two additions: expectations are also lower than average of reference group for group with neutral initial/overall valence and negative trend but higher for the positive and flat trends within the positive initial valence category. Finally, standards are higher than average for positive and flat trends in the positive initial /overall mean valence category and lower for the negative and flat trend groups in the negative initial

valence/overall valence category.

If only the coefficients with p-values<0.05 are considered significant then the group with flat trend and positive valence is not significantly different from reference group in average for expectations and standards. In terms of treatment groups based on combinations of

inconsistency and trend, the only group significantly different (higher) from average (of reference category) for both goals and expectations is that with consistent positive trend while for standards no groups are significantly different from average; however, all groups become

equal to the reference group in average if only coefficients with p-values<0.05 are considered significant.

Finally, task satisfaction and task performance satisfaction, the average for both is higher than the average in the reference group for the group with positive initial valence and positive trend while for task performance satisfaction, three groups have lower averages than the reference group: negative trend and negative initial valence, negative trend and neutral initial valence and flat trend and negative initial valence (coefficient for this last group only has p- value>0.05 but less than 0.05, all others have p-values<0.05). In terms of treatment groups based on combinations of inconsistency and trend, the two groups significantly different (higher) from average (of reference category) for both task performance satisfaction and task satisfaction are those when trend is positive regardless of consistency while for task satisfaction, an additional group with an average higher than that of the reference group is that with inconsistent flat trend (but this las group’s coefficient has a p-value>0.05). Also, for satisfaction with task performance one groups has a significantly lower average than the average in the reference group: the group with consistent negative trend.