T Thompson

Self-handicapping status, claimed self-handicaps and reduced practice effort following success and failure feedback

BACKGROUND Self-handicapping involves the strategic establishment of an impediment or obstacle to success prior to a performance situation which thereby provides a convenient excuse for poor performance. AIMS The study sought to establish that relative to low trait self-handicappers, high trait self-handicappers exposed to failure in an intellectually evaluative situation will (a) pre-emptively claim more handicaps, and (b) behaviourally self-handicap through reduced practice effort, and (c) report greater anxiety and negative affect relative to low trait self-handicappers. SAMPLE Participants were 72 undergraduate students, divided equally between high and low self-handicapping groups. METHOD This study utilised a 2 (self-handicapping status: high, low) x 3 (performance feedback: fail, low task importance; fail, high task importance; success) between-subjects factorial design to investigate claimed and behavioural self-handicapping through reduced practice effort. This was done by manipulating performance outcome and perceived task importance. RESULTS Relative to low trait self-handicappers, high trait high self-handicappers claimed more handicaps and engaged in greater behavioural self-handicapping following failure when working on tasks that were described as potentially diagnostic of low ability. While low self-handicappers internalised their success more than their failure in the high task importance condition, high self-handicappers were undifferentiated in their attributions across performance conditions. Greater anxiety and greater negative affect were also characteristic of high self-handicappers. CONCLUSIONS The study highlights the self-protective benefit of self-handicapping in sparing the individual from conclusions of low ability, and the failure of high self-handicappers to fully internalise their success. These elements and the role of uncertain estimates of ability are discussed in considering implications for intervention.

Development and validation of a Body Image Guilt and Shame Scale

Abstract The purpose of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the Body Image Guilt and Shame Scale (BIGSS). Undergraduate students ( n =87 women, n =66 men) completed the BIGSS, the Test of Self-conscious ffect (‘TOSCA’), scales assessing body image concern and importance, social physique anxiety, and personal and social identity. A factor analysis indicated that a two-factor solution reflecting guilt and shame was the most parsimonious explanation of the data from the BIGSS responses. An additional factor analysis of the BIGSS and TOSCA responses indicated that the responses could be divided between generalised guilt, generalised shame, body image guilt, and body image shame dimensions. The BIGSS guilt and shame dimensions also demonstrated strong internal consistency and item/item total correlations especially when Item 10 was deleted. Consistent with predictions, BIGSS guilt and shame were positively correlated with social physique anxiety, body image concern, and body image importance, demonstrating construct validity.

Does priming for mastery goals improve the performance of students with an entity view of ability

BACKGROUND There is evidence that an entity view of ability (where ability is viewed as a fixed entity that cannot be changed) is linked with social comparison goals and poor performance. On the other hand, an incremental view of ability (where ability is viewed as an acquirable skill) is linked with a mastery goal orientation and positive achievement outcomes. On these bases, the present study sought evidence that priming students with an entity view of ability to pursue mastery goals would result in improved performance. SAMPLE Participants were 48 students with an entity view of ability, and 48 students with an incremental view of ability. METHOD We used a 2 (views of ability: entity, incremental) x 2 (performance feedback: success, failure) x 2 (goal priming: mastery, social comparison) between-subjects factorial design to examine the effects of goal priming on performance for students with either an incremental or entity view of ability following either success or failure feedback. Prior to, and following, performance feedback, participants completed parallel measures of state anxiety. Participants were then primed for either social comparison goals prior to attempting to solve 16 Unicursal (tracing puzzle) tasks. Their performance on a subsequent set of Unicursal tasks was then examined. Finally participants completed a State Goals Scale assessing their degree of endorsement of social comparison/mastery goals whilst working on the Unicursal tasks. RESULTS The performance of students with an incremental view of ability was comparable irrespective of whether they were initially exposed to success and failure feedback and irrespective of whether they were primed for mastery or social comparison goals. However the performance of students with an entity view of ability improved when they were primed for mastery relative to social comparison goals irrespective of whether they were initially exposed to success or failure. CONCLUSIONS These findings confirm the performance-limiting consequences of social comparison goals for participants with an entity view of ability, suggesting benefits in encouraging these students to pursue mastery goals.

Do we need to train teachers how to administer praise? self-worth theory says we do

Abstract This paper examines recent findings concerned with the self-worth theory of achievement motivation. This theory states that certain students (known as self-worth protective students) perform poorly when a negative outcome is likely to reflect low ability, but perform well in situations in which poor performance can be attributed to a factor which is unrelated to ability. The paper traces the development and maintenance of self-worth protection to attributional messages implicit in several kinds of unproductive evaluative feedback used by teachers. The adverse psychological effects of these attributional messages are compounded by personality variables associated with self-worth protective students. These psychological effects in turn exacerbate the underachievement of these students.

Construction and initial validation of the Self-Worth Protection Scale

BACKGROUND The self-worth theory of achievement motivation holds that in certain circumstances students stand to gain by deliberately withdrawing effort. When failure occurs despite effort, students are likely to conclude that failure resulted from lack of ability. Thus, withdrawing effort offers a defence against conclusions of low ability, thereby protecting self-worth. AIM We undertook to assess the psychometric properties of the Self-Worth Protection Scale (SWPS). SAMPLE Data were obtained from 243 participants (Study 1) and 411 participants (Study 2) enrolled in undergraduate psychology courses at a university in the United States. METHOD We administered a number of scales, including the SWPS and scales assessing a fear of negative evaluation, academic self-esteem, uncertain global self-evaluations, self-handicapping, and causal uncertainty. RESULTS Exploratory factor analysis indicated a three-factor solution (ability doubts, the importance of ability as a criterion of self-worth, and an avoidance orientation) utilising 33 of the original 44 items. A confirmatory factor analysis indicated that this three-factor solution was a poor fit of the data. After modifying the model, a confirmatory factor analysis indicated that a three-factor solution with 26 of the original items and a higher order factor of self-worth protection was an adequate fit of the data. Reliability measures were acceptable for the three subscales and total score. The total score of the SWPS was positively correlated with theoretically related constructs, demonstrating construct validity. CONCLUSIONS The SWPS appears to be a psychometrically sound scale to assist in identifying individuals who manifest self-worth protection in achievement situations.

Re-examining the effects of noncontingent success on self-handicapping behaviour

BACKGROUND Self-handicapping refers to the practice on the part of certain individuals to handicap their performance when poor performance is likely to reveal low ability. Noncontingent success (feedback that is inflated relative to performance) is more likely to promote self-handicapping behaviour than noncontingent failure (failure feedback based on false or misleading information). However, the reasons for the differing effects of these forms of performance feedback on self-handicapping behaviour remain obscure. AIMS The present study sought an explanation for the differing effects of these forms of performance feedback, testing the assumption that students high in self-handicapping behaviour would react more negatively following noncontingent success, reporting more unstable and external attributions, higher anxiety, and a greater propensity to claim handicaps than those low in self-handicapping behaviour. No differences were expected on any of these measures for high relative to low self-handicappers following either noncontingent failure or success. SAMPLE Participants were 72 undergraduate students, divided equally between high and low self-handicapping groups. METHOD High and low self-handicappers were assigned to one of three performance feedback conditions: noncontingent failure, success and noncontingent success. High and low self-handicappers were then given an opportunity to claim handicaps prior to completing measures of attributions and state anxiety. Subsequently, they completed 12 remote associate tasks, serving as an assessment of performance, and 16 unicursal tasks, assessing practice effort. RESULTS Following noncontingent success, high self-handicappers reported greater anxiety, more unproductive attributions and claimed more handicaps than low self-handicappers. However no differences were evident for high and low self-handicappers following either noncontingent failure or success. High self-handicappers also performed poorly on the remote associates tasks and reduced practice effort on the unicursal tasks. CONCLUSIONS These findings confirm the adverse effects of noncontingent success for high self-handicappers, while failing to provide evidence that noncontingent failure has any more adverse effects on high relative to low self-handicappers.

Causal uncertainty, claimed and behavioural self-handicapping

BACKGROUND Causal uncertainty beliefs involve doubts about the causes of events, and arise as a consequence of non-contingent evaluative feedback: feedback that leaves the individual uncertain about the causes of his or her achievement outcomes. Individuals high in causal uncertainty are frequently unable to confidently attribute their achievement outcomes, experience anxiety in achievement situations and as a consequence are likely to engage in self-handicapping behaviour. AIMS Accordingly, we sought to establish links between trait causal uncertainty, claimed and behavioural self-handicapping. SAMPLE Participants were N=72 undergraduate students divided equally between high and low causally uncertain groups. METHOD We used a 2 (causal uncertainty status: high, low) x 3 (performance feedback condition: success, non-contingent success, non-contingent failure) between-subjects factorial design to examine the effects of causal uncertainty on achievement behaviour. Following performance feedback, participants completed 20 single-solution anagrams and 12 remote associate tasks serving as performance measures, and 16 unicursal tasks to assess practice effort. Participants also completed measures of claimed handicaps, state anxiety and attributions. RESULTS Relative to low causally uncertain participants, high causally uncertain participants claimed more handicaps prior to performance on the anagrams and remote associates, reported higher anxiety, attributed their failure to internal, stable factors, and reduced practice effort on the unicursal tasks, evident in fewer unicursal tasks solved. CONCLUSIONS These findings confirm links between trait causal uncertainty and claimed and behavioural self-handicapping, highlighting the need for educators to facilitate means by which students can achieve surety in the manner in which they attribute the causes of their achievement outcomes.

Shame-proneness and achievement behaviour

High shame-prone individuals attribute transgressions and negative outcomes to characterological faults, experiencing global feelings of self-debasement and enduring negative affect. As such, they are likely to be more vulnerable to the negative effects of failure, performing poorly and reducing practice effort irrespective of ameliorating or mitigating circumstances. In this study the latter assumption was tested for high relative to low shame-prone students, examining performance outcomes and practice effort following humiliating failure relative to face-saving failure and success. High shame-prone and low shame-prone students completed measures of state anxiety and negative affect prior to attempting to solve 20 anagrams serving as a performance measure, and 16 unicursal tasks, assessing practice effort. Following face-saving failure, low shame-prone students spent less time on the unicursal tasks, attempting fewer items and solving fewer problems. They also reported greater negative affect and higher anxiety. Implications are drawn in terms of the manner in which the unproductive attributions of shame-prone students following failure are best modified.

Implications of manipulating anticipatory attributions on the strategy use of defensive pessimists and strategic optimists

Abstract Defensive pessimists (DPs) are individuals who acknowledge prior success in achievement contexts, yet typically enter new achievement situations with unrealistically low expectations and ruminate about possible outcomes. On the other hand, strategic optimists (SOs) set high expectations for their performance and avoid reflecting extensively on an upcoming task. This study tested the assumption that the strategy use of DPs and SOs is activated in situations in which failure is likely to be diagnostic of low ability, but obviated in situations where a face-saving excuse is available to explain poor performance. Following humiliating failure, DPs and SOs performed better than following failure which involved face-saving. Provision of a face-saving excuse not only reduced anxiety for both DPs and SOs, but also reduced cognitive interference and was associated with greater perceived control. Prima facie , these data support the interpretation that the strategy use of DPs and SOs is activated or otherwise on the basis of anticipated attributions for poor performance.

Performance and persistence of worriers and non-worriers following success and failure feedback

Abstract Worry is a cognitive phenomenon that involves rumination over future events accompanied by feelings of anxiety. This study utilised a 2 (worry status: worrier vs. non-worrier) × 2 (performance feedback: success vs. non-contingent failure) × 2 (strategy advice: advice vs. none) between subjects factorial design to investigate the effects of worry on performance and persistence by manipulating performance feedback and strategy advice. n=48 worriers and n=48 non-worriers completed measures of state anxiety, cognitive interference, and perceptions of performance. Following an induction to make participants believed they had failed on a task, worriers showed poor performance, elevated anxiety, and greater cognitive interference than non-worriers. No evidence of nonproductive persistence was evident for worries given strategy advice. The roles of anticipated difficulty levels, item solubility, problem solving confidence, and the perceived value of dogged persistence are discussed in assessing situational factors conducive to nonproductive persistence.