Response to failure, strategic flexibility, and learning

Recent studies have shown that good problem-solvers spend more time in contemplating their errors, as compared to the time they spend in contemplating success (Shafrir, Ogilvie, & Bryson, 1990; Shafrir & Pascual-Leone, 1990). This study tested the hypotheses that: (1) Subjects who spend long periods of time thinking about their mistakes (post-failure reflectives) are not only good problem-solvers, but are also aware of and make more frequent use of task-relevant and effective strategies, than subjects who do not spend a lot of time in contemplating their errors (post-failure impulsives). (2) Subjects who are post-failure reflective and post-failure impulsive respond differently to failure in situations where learning is not involved. The results of two experiments supported these hypotheses; children in the 10-13 age group who were post-failure reflective were better problem-solvers, and were more aware of the strategies that they had used, than post-failure impulsive children. On a projective test of response to failure, post-failure reflective children took a more serious view of failure, even when the situational context of the failure experience did not involve learning, than post-failure impulsive children. These results suggest that a general model of response to failure is needed in order to account not only for failure-related behaviour in a learning context, but also in other situations where the contemplation of a recent failure does not produce obvious or immediate gains in future performance.