Percentages of students with dyslexia went from 2% in early 1970 (Powell, 1994) to 10% in 2015 (Tasman et al., 2015). The prevalence of reading and writing-related difficulties are potentially enhanced given that attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is also present (comorbidity rate of 45.1%, DuPaul et al., 2012). Moreover, the male to female ratio is approximately 5:1 (Qasim, 2018). Although dyslexia is diagnosed primarily using psychometric measures that test whether individuals fall at the extreme lower tail of the distribution in reading, writing, and/or phonological awareness (Hitschcock et al., 2004), several studies have shown that students with learning problems have difficulties maintaining proper levels of motivation to stay with a task, which is particularly more important to them compared to the rest of the students (Cano et al., 2021). The latter (motivation) is excluded from any definition of LD although an important proxy, extended time, has proved to be beneficial as a testing accommodation in LD (Ofiesh, 2000; Ofiesh and Hughes, 2002; Lewandowski et al., 2007, 2013; Gregg and Nelson, 2010). However, typical academic practices rarely emphasize active engagement or the provision of additional time for practice for these students. An example is the popular “spelling bee” game where students participate and engage as long as they provide correct responses. Thus, the opportunity to practice is essentially non-existent for students with dyslexia who likely misspell a word during the first round. Moreover, practices (public posting of grades, etc.) are likely associated with students with LD diminished motivation (Butler, 1988; Chamberlin et al., 2018; Koenka et al., 2021), disrespect, ridicule, isolation, teasing, bullying, stigma, and contempt (Smith and Strick, 1997; MacMaster et al., 2002; Colwell and O’Conner, 2003; Kroese and Reed, 2005; Singer, 2005; Gates and Edwards, 2007; Roffman, 2007; Baumeister et al., 2008; Zhao and Zhang, 2008). Low motivation, negative affect, and low academic achievement, coupled with labeling and exclusion due to being identified as disabled (Jenkins et al., 1994) are likely responsible for the extremely high rates of dropout as approximately 38% of them eventually quit school (Calhoon, 2005; Reed, 2005). Their school drop-out rates partly reflect their lack of motivation to continue being engaged that are not at all rewarding; they are punished throughout the day as typical teacher practices find students with LD to be bystanders of the learning that takes place beside them. Motivation and goal-directed behaviors are essential for all students as they are associated with increases in time on task and enhance academic achievement when they are adaptive (e.g., intrinsically based) (Elliot and Thrash, 2002), and the opposite is also true when engaging in maladaptive thought processes (e.g., goal to avoid failure) (Elliot and Church, 1997). The present study engages a revision of the achievement goal theory framework (Grant and Dweck, 2003) to examine goal-directed behaviors and affect in students with dyslexia.

Goal orientations have historically been mentioned in the works of various theorists such as Ames (1984); Nicholls (1984), and Dweck (1986), among others. These goal representations characterize thought processes that are linked to goal-directed behaviors and describe the reasoning behind student engagement with a task (Ames and Archer, 1988). Typically, these motivations can be intrinsic (e.g., identifying with, finding value, or enjoying a task) or extrinsic (expecting positive external outcomes from that engagement). Dweck and Leggett’s (1988) conceptualization involved mastery and performance goals. Mastery goals derive from intrinsic interest and joy (Harackiewicz et al., 2000) whereas performance goals are oriented towards validating one’s ability (Elliot and Harackiewicz, 1996; Hulleman et al., 2010). Based on a more recent conceptualization by Grant and Dweck (2003) who favored a dichotomization of performance goals based on normative evaluating criteria, “wanting to outperform other students” and “wanting to get a 100% score” are both different manifestations of performance goals. Their thesis for this bifurcation was that the difference in focus may be responsible for a host of different experiential outcomes and divergent academic results. In particular, they hypothesized that the focus on outperforming others may cause unnecessary stress to the person and may restrict cognitive and emotional resources that, although necessary for the task at hand, they are drifted away as a means to cope with the emotional experience (i.e., negative emotions). In their original study, Grant and Dweck found support for this dichotomization as their factor analytic model showed that normative goals were distinct from other types of performance goals such as outcome and ability (second study). In this study, they also failed to find reliable predictions of normative goals with negative processes such as loss of motivation, and withdrawal of effort (fourth study), although they reported a significant positive prediction of denial from normative goals. Sideridis (2008) provided further evidence for this normative and non-normative goals distinction, reporting inferior performance on a cognitive task in the non-normative goal group (compared to the normative goal group). He also reported the potential cognitive interference when participants had to make affect-related associations. However, this differentiation was not supported in the performance of individuals on an easy matching task.

Moreover, evidence from Electroencephalographic studies (EEG) for students with learning disabilities and/or dyslexia that examine motivation and effect on academic tasks is limited, although some evidence for children with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has indicated functioning in lower frequencies such as theta or delta waves compared to age and gender-matched comparison groups (e.g., Barry et al., 2003; Hobbs et al., 2007). Although the above findings refer to students with ADD and ADHD, findings may apply to students with LD as there is comorbidity between the two disorders of approximately 45% (DuPaul et al., 2012). An interesting question is whether the activation of specific neurocortical pathways is influenced by the goals that likely direct specific academic behaviors.

It is important to evaluate the presence of the above dichotomization because performance goals are at the core of everyday living. Individuals are mainly judged based on favorable criticisms compared to others. Thus, the investigation of the motivation, that is, the outcome of pleasing others, is important to understand as it is likely associated with specific self-regulation and emotional regulation mechanisms. In this study, it is posited that the suggested dichotomization of normative vs. non-normative performance goals would manifest itself using different activation pathways as a function of the diverse emotional reactions experienced during performance pursuits. Specifically, we hypothesize that the emotional burden associated with conforming to normative evaluative standards will devastate individuals with dyslexia since normative comparisons have been consistently reported as undermining their perceived self-worth during school years. The following hypothesis was tested: Individuals in the normative performance goal condition will experience elevated tension and stress as evidenced using enhanced Electromyographic (EMG) activation of the face muscles and elevated Blood Volume Pulse (BVP). Furthermore, they will exhibit EEG activity that occupies low frequencies, which are not conducive to being alert and to performing cognitive and academically complex tasks such as reading.

The present study sought to test whether normative compared to non-normative performance goals would be associated with divergent pathways. In particular the present study’s interest was in the regulation of emotions and cognition related to an academic task, specifically for students with dyslexia for whom academic achievement represents a major challenge. The thesis that normative goals would be linked to elevated and maladaptive physiological responses is grounded on the fact that normative goals have strong social evaluative criteria. These social evaluative comparisons are especially central in academic life as social comparisons may divert one’s attention to the self rather than to the task at hand, thus, leading to impaired cognitive performance. Several experimental studies using the original conceptualization of performance goals with an emphasis on normative evaluations have highlighted the harmful effects of these goals on cognitive performance through manipulating evaluative pressures in highly demanding tasks (Baumeister, 1984; Beilock and Carr, 2001, 2005; Beilock et al., 2004; DeCaro et al., 2010). Based on the work of Grouzevialle and Butera (2013) the presence of normative evaluative criteria creates a “dual-task situation” where evaluative pressure inhibits cognitive performance by driving attention away from task-relevant processes to distractive thoughts and irrelevant material [see also Cowan (2001) and Pulfrey et al. (2011)]. Grouzevialle and Butera (2013) termed this phenomenon the “distraction hypothesis” with deteriorated performance being attributed to the depletion of cognitive resources such as working memory. The present study’s results partly corroborate these previous studies’ findings.

In particular, findings from this study support the distraction hypothesis (Grouzevialle and Butera, 2013). Participants in the normative goal condition allocated resources to irrelevant tasks (elevated myographic activity) and maladaptive EEG activity for the reading task at hand. Thus, the hypothesis that normative goals place unnecessary pressure on individuals and overload the cognitive system is supported by the present physiological analysis. Further evidence on the difference between normative and non-normative goals has been put forth by the work of Darnon et al. (2007) who suggested that as individuals’ self-evaluations deteriorate when challenged, the notion of uncertainty becomes particularly prevalent. That is, individuals, become more uncertain about the possibility that enhanced effort will lead to positive outcomes; instead, threats to self-esteem become more prevalent as individuals strive to avoid negative judgments from a potential upcoming failure (Hoffman-Lambird and Mann, 2006). This is why Pulfrey et al. (2011) suggested that normative evaluative criteria likely trigger performance-avoidance goals as they evoke perceptions of lack of control and powerlessness. This disengagement and effort withdrawal may be manifested with EEG activation that resembles the “slow-wave disorder” described by Lubar (1991) in individuals with attention deficit disorder (ADD) [see also Clarke et al. (2011)]. In the present study, during the normative goal condition, participants operated on alpha frequencies of 8–10 Hz, suggesting that the individuals moved towards deeper states such as those involved in sleep and drowsiness. The observed sensorimotor rhythm (SMR) activity of the participants (also termed low beta and reflecting an internal orientation and an idle motor circuit) is considered adaptive for academic purposes. In the present study, SMR activity was lower during the normative performance condition, suggesting an inhabitation of that activity. Furthermore, Beta activity, which is associated with high focus, analytical thinking, and relaxed thinking, was significantly lower in the normative performance goal condition compared to the non-normative goal condition.

Although the physiological responses substantiated the need to distinguish between normative and non-normative performance goals, interestingly, there were no differences between goal conditions on reading pseudowords. This finding may be attributed to the overall low performance of individuals with dyslexia on this task. That is, the performance was almost at floor levels for most participants who struggled to even read five words in a minute. Thus, the limited variance associated with the outcome variable may be responsible for this observation. Certainly, future studies need to repeat these tests and validate or not the present findings.

Collectively, the above findings suggest that the desire to reach goals that are grounded on normative evaluative standards may lead to cognitive and emotional self-regulation failure when these goals are not met. This finding is particularly more problematic for individuals with dyslexia because meeting normative criteria for individuals who typically score below the norm by approximately 1.5–2.0 standard deviations is practically impossible. Alarming is the finding of Pryor and Crossouard (2010) who showed that student ratings to achieve, and thrive have been consistently rising with time, and thus, the gap between students with and without dyslexia may further deepen.

Although important, findings from the present study should be replicated with larger samples, enhanced physiological protocols, self-reported or physiological measures of affect (e.g., rating scales and cortisol analyses), and the presence of controls. Nevertheless, the present study provides preliminary empirical evidence on the distinction between normative and non-normative performance goals regarding self-regulation.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the National and Kapodistrain University of Athens. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

GA developed the literature, designed the methodology, did the analysis, reported the results and discussed them, and approved the submitted version.

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.