A structural model of self-worth protection and achievement

8/7/2019 A structural model of self-worth protection and achievement

1/10

Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

A Structural Model of Self-Worth Protection and Achievement: Goals, Evaluative Anxiety,

Attributions, Self-Esteem, and Uncertainty

Dale L. Dinnel, Todd Brittain, Ted Thompson

Kari Johnson Mary King, and Kim Pust

Western Washington University University of TasmaniaUnited States of America Australia

The purpose of this study was to test a model of self-worth protection and achievement behavior using measures of

goal orientation, evaluative anxiety, attributional styles, self-esteem, and uncertainty. Data were collected from 306university students at Western Washington University to test the fit of the data to proposed model of self-worthprotection tendencies and academic achievement. In the best fitting model, evaluative threat was predictive of self-

uncertainty. High levels of self-uncertainty were predictive of low levels of internal, controllable attributions and highperformance avoidance goal orientations and low mastery goal orientations as well as of a self-worth protection

tendency. Low levels of internal, controllable attributions also predicted that the goal orientation would lack amastery focus while focusing on performance avoidance. This goal orientation was predictive of a self-worthprotection tendency which, in turn, was predictive of low achievement.

Although most individuals strive to achieve at thehighest level, some individuals are motivated to avoid

failure at all costs (Covington & Omelich, 1979). For theseindividuals, failure is so distressing that they will doanything to avoid accompanying attributions of lowability. When people are uncertain of their ability andperformance and express evaluative anxiety, they utilizestrategies to deflect attributions of low ability following

failure such as self-worth protection (Thompson, 1999).Thus, self-worth protection is a strategy whereby certainstudents withdraw effort so that they are able to avoid thenegative effects of poor performance in terms of damage

to self-worth.Closely associated with self-worth protection are

several predisposing personality variables. In particular,self-worth protection behavior is a response to the threat

posed by an evaluative situation in which a judgment maybe made about an individuals ability (Covington &Omelich, 1979; Thompson, 1999). The threat of evaluationmay be expressed either as a fear of evaluative situations(e.g., fear of failure and fear of negative evaluation) or asanxiety associated with evaluative situations (e.g., test

anxiety or evaluation anxiety) (Thompson, 1999)In addition to evaluative anxiety, links between self-

worth protection and low global and academic self-esteem

have been noted (Covington & Omelich, 1985; Craske,1985; Thompson, 1993; Thompson, Davidson, & Barber,1995). Baumgardner and Levy (1988) offer a way of

understanding the self-protective orientation of low self-esteem people. They suggest that there is a difference in

which high and low self-esteem groups perceive the abilityof individuals who expend effort, but fail. In the case ofhigh self-esteem individuals, the intention to expend effortimplies high ability regardless of performance. On the

other hand, intentional low effort signals low ability.However, low self-esteem individuals appear to view

individuals who try hard but fail as less able thanindividuals who try hard and succeed. That is, low-self

esteem individuals seem unwilling to conclude that anindividual who tries hard and fails can nonetheless bequite capable. Thus, low self-esteem individuals may, infact, be operating under the mistaken impression that

strategic withdrawal of effort is an effective self-

presentational strategy, at least insofar as it mitigatesperceptions of low ability in the face of failure.

The certainty with which individuals estimate theirlevel of global self-esteem as well as the causes for theirachievement has its own distinct effects on achievementbehavior. People with uncertain self-images lackconfidence in their worth in the eyes of other people and intheir capacity to bring about effects in their environment

(Thompson, 1993, 1997,1999; Thompson et al., 1995). Inaddition, they are querulous about the causes of theirachievement outcomes and, as a consequence, are unlikelyto fully internalise their success (Thompson et al., 1995).

Combined with low self-esteem and uncertainty theattributional styles of self-worth protective individuals

tend toward dysfunctional patterns. Thompson et al.(1995) found that self-worth protective individuals

perceived less control over achievement situationsirrespective of whether the outcome was success or failurethan non-self-worth protective, high academic self-esteemindividuals. In addition, they found that self-worthprotective individuals attributed failure to internal factorswhile attributing success to external factors whereas the

reverse was true of non-self-worth protective individuals.Furthermore, non-self-worth protective individualsattribute success to stable factors and failure to unstable

factors while the reverse seems to characterize self-worthprotective individuals (McCarry, Edwards, & Rozario,1982; Miller & Ross, 1975; Schlenker, Weigold, &

Hallam, 1990; Thompson, 1999).Taken together these personality variables may affect

goal-setting strategies (Thompson, 1999). Individuals whoare non-self-worth protective or success-oriented studentshave a tendency to set goals of intermediate difficulty thatwill ensure self-improvement (Covington, 2000;

Thompson 1999), a mastery goal orientation (Ames,1992). Thompson (1999) posited that self-worth protective

individuals set goals that are competitive in orientation orwhat is commonly referred to as a performance goal

orientation (see Dweck, 1986). However, Elliot andHarackiewicz (1996) further divided this performance goalorientation into performance approach and performanceavoidance goal orientations. People with performance

approach goal orientations competitively seek to

1


2/10


demonstrate their competence whereas people withperformance avoidance goal orientations tend to avoid thedemonstration of incompetence. Thus, it would seem thatnon-self-worth protective individuals might be morevested in either mastery or performance approach goalorientations whereas self-worth protective individuals

would be more likely to set performance avoidance goals.Taken together, these personality variables, goals

orientations, and self-worth protective behaviors lead tothe withdrawal of effort on the part of self-worthprotective individuals. While this strategy may serve theshort-term benefit of avoiding a judgment of their self-worth based on ability, in the long-term achievement isadversely affected (Thompson, 1999). In particular,

achievement as measured by standardized tests and bycumulative grade point averages will be lower for self-worth protective versus non-self-worth protectiveindividuals.

As a result of the findings stated above, two structural

models of self-worth protection and achievement behaviorwere proposed. In the first model (Model 1), self-uncertainty (global self-esteem uncertainty and causaluncertainty) is predictive of low self-esteem (academicand global self esteem) and self-worth protectiontendencies (ability doubts, importance of ability, andavoidance orientation). Low self-esteem, in turn, ispredictive of self-worth protective tendencies,

dysfunctional attributional patterns (lack of internalizingsuccess, lack of control, and lack of stable abilityestimates), and evaluative threat (fear of failure, fear ofnegative evaluation, test anxiety, evaluative anxiety).Dysfunctional attributional patterns and goal orientations

that are low in mastery and performance approachcharacteristics but high in performance avoidance

characteristics are predictive of self-worth protectivetendencies. In addition, goal orientation is predictive ofevaluative threat which is, in turn, predictive of self-worthprotective tendencies. The tendency to engage in self-worth protective behaviors is predictive of lowachievement as measured by standardized tests andcumulative grade point averages (see Figure 1). In the

alternate model (Model 2), evaluative threat is predictiveof self-uncertainty and self-worth protection tendencies. Inturn, self-uncertainty is predictive of self-worth protectivetendencies and low self-esteem. Low self esteem also is

predictive of self-worth protective tendencies as well asdysfunctional attributions. Dysfunctional attributions are

predictive of self-worth protective tendencies anddysfunctional goal orientations. Dysfunctional goalorientations are predictive of self-worth protectivetendencies which, in turn, are predictive of low long-termachievement (see Figure 2).

Method

Participants

Three hundred twenty-nine undergraduate introductory

psychology students from Western Washington Universityparticipated in the present study for research credit. Theresponses for 23 participants were incomplete, resulting incomplete data for 306 (141 men and 165 women)

participants. These participants ranged in age from 18-30with a mean age of 19.07 years (SD = 1.05 years). Theethnic/racial identity of the participants included 262European Americans, 15 Asian Americans, 8 AfricanAmericans, 4 Latinos, 7 Pacific Islanders, 2 AmericanIndians, 7 of mixed ethnicity, and 1 who reported other

ethnic/racial classifications.

Materials

Academic Self-Esteem Scale. Academic self-esteem wasassessed using the Academic Self-Esteem Scale (ASE) ofthe Marsh (1990) Self-Descriptive Questionnaire III. ASESassesses individuals' self-esteem in academic situations

using 30 items such as "I learn quickly in most academicsubjects." Participants are asked to indicate theirdisagreement/agreement to each item on a 9-point scale withend-point designations Strongly disagree (1) and Stronglyagree (9). Marsh (1990) reported Cronbachs alphas for the

ASE ranging from .76 to .95, with a mean of .89 (Marsh,1990). Marsh also reported median test-retest reliabilities of.87 for a one-month interval and .74 for an 18-monthinterval.

Causal Dimension Scale. The Causal Dimension Scaleis comprised of 9 items (Russell, 1982) that represent threeattributional dimensions: internality, stability, andcontrollability. Participants are asked to rate a situation in

terms of three internality (INT; e.g., Reflects on youReflects your situation), three stability (STAB; e.g.,PermanentTemporary), and three controllability(CON; e.g., Not under your controlUnder yourcontrol) semantic differential responses. A factor analysis

confirmed the three-factor structure of this scale (Russell,1982). Russell found the measures of internal consistency

to be acceptable for both internality and stability, = .88,

but somewhat problematic for controllability, = .48.Causal Uncertainty Scale. The Causal Uncertainty Scale

(CU; Edwards, Weary, & Reich, 1998) is a 9-item scale that

measures the degree to which individuals are uncertain ofthe causes of events in their lives. Sample items are: "WhenI receive poor grades, I usually don't understand why I didso poorly and I do not know what it takes to get alongwith others." Participants are asked to rate each item on a 6-point scale with end-point designations ofStrongly disagree

(6) and Strongly agree (1). Edwards et al. (1988) report a

coefficient alpha of .86 and found the CU to be significantlycorrelated with depression (r = .37), perceived lack ofcontrol (r= .51), anxiety (r= .41), intolerance for ambiguity(r = .26), self-esteem (r = -.40), neuroticism (r = .32),decisiveness (r = -.28) and need for cognition (r = -.42),

demonstrating construct validity.Evaluation Anxiety Scale. The Evaluation Anxiety Scale

(EVAN; Thompson & Dinnel, 2001) is comprised of 15items that measure self-reported anxiety in evaluativesituations. A sample item from the EVAN is: "I get anxiouswhen I am given a homework assignment that challengesmy ability to do well." Participants are asked to rate thedegree to which each item is true of them on a 7-point scale

with endpoint designations ofNot at all true of me (1) andVery true of me (7). Construct validity of the EVAN was

demonstrated by correlations with fear of failure (r= .54),

2


3/10


fear of negative evaluation (r= .48), and test anxiety (r=.56). The internal consistency of EVAN was = .85.

Revised Test Anxiety Scale. The Revised Test AnxietyScale (RTAS, Benson & El-Zahhar, 1994) consists of 20

items that are designed to assess situation specific anxiety.Items are rated on a 4-point scale where 1 = almost never,2 = sometimes, 3 = often, and 4 = almost always. From theresults of a factor analysis, Benson and El-Zahhar definedfor factors for the RTAS comprised of items such asDuring a test I feel very tense (tension), During tests Ifind myself thinking about the consequences of failing(worry), While taking tests I sometimes think about being

somewhere else (test-irrelevant thinking), and I get aheadache during an important exam (bodily symptoms).Since the subscale scores are fairly highly correlated (r=

.53-.79), subscale scores were summed to form a total testanxiety score in the present study. Benson and El-Zahhar

report excellent internal consistencies for the total score (

= .91), worry ( = .81), tension ( = .87), test-irrelevant

thinking ( = .81), and bodily symptoms ( = .76).Fear of Failure Scale. The Fear of Failure Scale (FOF)

is a 9-item subscale of the Study Problems Questionnaire(Schouwenburg, 1995). The items measure the level offear that a person experiences in work and educational

situations (e.g., Im afraid that all my weak points willshow up in examinations.). Items are rated on a 5-pointscale with rating point descriptors ofstrongly disagree (1),disagree (2), neither agree or disagree (3), agree (4), andstrongly agree (5).

Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. The Fear ofNegative Evaluation Scale (FNE; Watson & Friend, 1969)is a 30-item scale that assesses the extent to which people

experience apprehension about being negatively evaluatedby other people. A sample item from the FNE is I amafraid that others will not approve of me. Participants areasked to rate the degree to which each statement ischaracteristic of them on a 5-point scale with end- and

intermediate-point designations of Not at allcharacteristic of me (1), Slightly characteristic of me (2),Moderately characteristic of me (3), Very characteristicof me (4), and Extremely characteristic of me (5). Thebrief form of the FNE scale (Leary, 1983), which wasused in the present study, uses 12 of the original 30 itemsof the FNE Scale. Leary reported an inter-item reliabilityof .90 and test-retest reliability of .75 for the brief form of

the FNE.Global Self-Esteem Uncertainty Scale. The Global

Self-Esteem Uncertainty Scale (GSEU) uses the itemsfrom the Global subscale of the Marsh (1990) Self-Descriptive Questionnaire III. The Global Self-Esteem

Scale (GSE) is a 12-item scale that measures howindividuals feel about themselves in general. However,

for the present study, we implemented format changesconsistent with Thompson (1993, Thompson, Davidson &Barber, 1995). In particular, certainty of GSE items wasgained by formatting the Marsh items into a dichotomouspoint format (like me, unlike me), then askingparticipants to rate their responses of a 5-point scaleranging from Very certain (1) to Not at all certain (5).

Thompson and Dinnel (2000) report an internalconsistency of = .88. Furthermore, correlations of theGSEU with causal uncertainty (r = .38) and fear ofnegative evaluation (r= .49) indicate construct validity.

School Domain Goal Orientation Scale. The SchoolDomain Goal Orientation Scale is an adaptation of the 13

items on the Work Domain Goal Orientation Instrument(Vandewalle, 1997). In general, the word work in the

Work Domain Goal Orientation Instrument was replacedby the word school in the School Domain OrientationScale. For example, I am willing to select a challengingwork assignment that I can learn a lot from was changedto I am willing to select a challenging school assignment

that I can learn a lot from. A factor analysis of the scaleyielded three subscales: Mastery Goal Orientation (MGO;e.g., I enjoy challenging and difficulty tasks at school(work) where Ill learn new skills.), PerformanceApproach Goal Orientation (PGOAPP; e.g., I try to figureout what it takes to prove my ability to others at school(work).), and Performance Avoidance Goal Orientation

(PGOAV; e.g., Im concerned about taking on a task at

school (work) if my performance would reveal that I hadlow ability.). Participants rate each item on a 6-pointscale from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree.Measures of internal consistency exceeded the criterion of

= .80 for each subscale, Mastery ( = .89), Approach (

= .85), and Avoidance ( = .89), demonstrating a highlevel of internal consistency in responding. In addition, thetest-retest reliability over a 3-month interval was r= .66

for Mastery, r = .60 for Approach, and r = .57 forAvoidance.

Self-Esteem Scale. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

(RSES, Rosenberg, 1965) consists of 10 items that assessparticipants levels of self-acceptance. Responses are

made on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = stronglydisagree to 5 = strongly agree on items such as I feel thatI have a number of good qualities and At times I think I

am no good at all. The scale demonstrates goodconvergent validity with correlations of .67, .83, and .56

when correlated with three other measures of self-esteem(Silber & Tippett, 1965) Silber and Tippett also found atest-retest reliability over a 2-week interval of .86.

Self-Worth Protection Scale-Short Form. The Self-

Worth Protection Scale (SWP; Dinnel & Thompson, 2001)comprises 18 self-descriptive statements formatted on 7-

point scales with end-point designations of Not very true

of me (1) to Very true of me (7). The SWPS comprises

three subscales, these being Ability Doubts (AD; 6 items),Importance of Ability (IA; 6 items), and AvoidanceOrientation (AO; 6 items). A sample item is: "Im afraidthat I will fail at something even though I often do pretty

well". Dinnel and Thompson (2001) report an internalconsistency (Cronbachs alpha) of .92 and test-retestreliability of .90 for a four-week interval. In addition, theyreport that the SWP was correlated with academic self-handicapping (r= .45) and the impostor phenomenon (r=.58), indicating construct validity. For the present study, an

18-item revision of this scale was used (Thompson,Crosswell, & Dinnel, 2001).

Procedure

Participants were tested in two groups ofapproximately 150 in a university classroom that

3


4/10


accommodated 500 students. They were told that theywould be completing a questionnaire packet in which theirattitudes and behaviors in academic situations would bemeasured as well as some dimensions of their ownpersonality. They were encouraged to read each questioncarefully and to respond to it in a manner consistent with

how they felt about the item at that particular time. Theywere also informed that there were no correct answers toeach item, merely how they felt about the item at thatparticular time. Participants were also told that they werenot to provide any identifying information such as theirnames or student numbers in an effort to encourage honestresponding. After responding to questions, participantswere allowed one hour to complete the questionnaire

packet.

Results

Bivariate correlations for each of the variables are

presented in Table 1. In addition, measures of internalconsistency (Cronbachs alpha, means and standarddeviations for each of the variables in the present study arepresented in Table 2. Model 1 was then tested forgoodness of fit using AMOS. The results of the analysisindicated that the model was not a good fit for the data

(2(142, N= 306) = 818.10, p < .001; GFI= .77; CFI=.69; NFI = .65; ECVI = 3.00; RMSEA = .13).Nonsignificant paths were removed and adjustments to the

model were made in accordance to the modificationindices failed to yield a model with acceptable goodness-

of-fit indices.The alternate model, Model 2, was then tested. The

results of the analysis indicated that this model was not agood fit for the data (2(142, N= 306) = 725.07, p < .001;GFI= .80; CFI= .74; NFI= .70; ECVI= 2.58; RMSEA =.11). However when nonsignificant paths were removed(i.e., self-esteem variables, the stability component ofattributions, and the importance of ability dimension of

self-worth protection) and adjustments were made inaccordance to the modification indices (i.e., fear measureswere removed from evaluative anxiety because ofsignificant shared variance with anxiety measures andperformance approach goal orientation was removedbecause of significant shared variance with mastery goal

orientation), the resultant model provided an acceptable fit

to the data (2(47, N= 306) = 161.28, p < .001; GFI= .92;CFI= .90; NFI= .87; ECVI = 0.73; RMSEA = .08). The

standardized coefficients for this final model are providedin Figure 3.

Discussion

The two proposed models in the present study did notresult in acceptable fit indices. Even when modifications

to Model 1 were considered, an acceptable fit was notattained. However, when modifications to Model 2 wereconsidered, an acceptable fit to the data was achieved. Inthis model, evaluative threat as measured by test anxiety

and evaluative anxiety was predictive of self-uncertaintyas measured by global self-esteem uncertainty and causal

uncertainty. High levels of self-uncertainty were predictiveof low levels of internal, controllable attributions and goal

orientations that were high on performance avoidance andlow on mastery as well as of a self-worth protectiontendency which was measured by ability doubts and anavoidance orientation. Low levels of internal, controllableattributions also predicted that the goal orientation wouldlack a mastery focus while focusing on performance

avoidance. This goal orientation was predictive of a self-worth protection tendency which, in turn, was predictiveof low achievement as measured by the composite scoreon the Scholastic Aptitude Test and cumulative gradepoint average.

The results of the present study are consistent with theliterature on failure avoidance and self-worth protection.When individuals are anxious about their performance on

academic tasks, the anxiety is often associated with a lackof confidence or uncertainty about their abilities(Thompson, 1999). This uncertainty affects results in theperception of tasks as being beyond their control(Thompson et al., 1995). However, in the present model,

self-uncertainty led to more external attributions whereasself-worth protective individuals tended to attributesuccesses to external factors and failures to internalfactors. The inconsistency of the results could be attributeto not having a condition in the present study in whichsuccess and failure were actively manipulate as in previousstudies (Thompson et al., 1995). Thus, we may haveobtained a general attributional tendency that may change

in specific contexts. However, contrary to previousresearch findings the stability factor of attributions was notdirectly or indirectly predictive of self-worth protection(McCarry, Edwards, & Rozario, 1982; Miller & Ross,1975; Schlenker, Weigold, & Hallam, 1990; Thompson,

1999). Consistent with previous findings by Thompsonand his colleagues (Thompson, 1993, 1997, 1999,

Thompson et al., 1995), we found that uncertainty aboutthe causes of achievement outcomes and about the globalself-esteem characterize individuals who are self-worthprotective. Both self-uncertainty and external,uncontrollable attributional patterns were predictive of alack of mastery goal orientation and the presence ofperformance goal orientations. These results are consistent

with the findings of Thompson (1999) and Elliot andHarackiewicz (1996) who found that mastery-orientedstudents were more success-seekers and intrinsicallymotivated which characterizes non-self-worth protective

individuals whereas performance avoidant students werefailure avoidant and extrinsically motivated which

characterizes self-worth protective individuals. Consistentwith Covington and Omelich (1979) and Thompson(1999), we found that as self-worth protective behaviorsincreased long term performance decreased.

Caution should be exercised in interpreting the resultsof the present study. First, all of the participants wereuniversity students who may be less self-worth protectivethan the general population. This model should be tested

with middle school and high school samples to determinethe generalizability to these populations. In addition, thepresent study was conducted with students from the United

States. It is unclear if these results will generalize toindividuals from other cultures. Several researchers havenoted important differences in cultures on the variables in

the present study (e.g., Crittenden, 1996; Grant & Dweck,

4


5/10


2001; Yu, 1996), especially between individualistic andcollectivistic cultures. While Thompson (1999) assertedthat researchers have not demonstrated a gender differencein self-worth protection behaviors, future researchersmight also check the model for differences based ongender since many of the dimensions of personality have

been shown to vary on the basis of gender (e.g., Huber &Podsakoff, 1985; Levy & Baumgardner, 1991; Zoller &Ben-Chaim, 1990). Finally, the present study presents ageneral model of self-worth protection and achievementbehavior. This model may not generalize to specificacademic contexts. More specialized models (e.g.,mathematics, language, science) may better explainachievement motivation and behavior.

If the results of the present study are maintainedthrough replication, several important applications can beconsidered for helping self-worth protective studentschange their behavior. First, self-worth protective studentsneed to learn to manage their anxiety levels. Anxiety

management techniques can lead to a more clearly definedsense of self. Students also need to gain more confidencein their abilities to achieve. Teachers can assist students inbeing more certain of themselves and their abilities bykeeping accurate records that demonstrate successfulperformance and asking students to explain why they weresuccessful. As a part of this process, students may also beencouraged to make appropriate attributions or be given

attribution retraining programs (Thompson, 1999).Students should also be taught to set goals that result inmastery orientations or self-improvement rather than inperformance avoidance (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996;Thompson, 1999). By addressing these issues, teachers can

help self-worth protective students overcome theirtendencies to reduce effort in situations of uncertainty and,

in the long-term, achieve at higher levels.

About the Authors

Dr. Dale L. Dinnel, professor of psychology at WesternWashington University, has published research on cross-cultural conceptualisations of the self and social phobia,

achievement motivation, and the teaching and learning ofmathematics and science.

Dr. Ted Thompson coordinates research in the

Achievement Behaviour lab at the University of Tasmania.Research in the lab focuses on failure-avoidant patterns of

behaviour, revealing key aspects of personality, clarifyingthe conditions under which individuals are likely tosabotage their performance, gathering information aboutthe perceived benefits of these behaviours, as well asdocumenting long-term costs.

Todd Brittain, Kari Johnson, Mary King, and Kimberly

Pust are all undergraduate students at Western

Washington University. They conduct research in Dr. DaleL. Dinnels Achievement Motivation lab. In addition to thepresent research, their research has focused on anticipated

attributions and the consensus effect.

Contact Details

Dale L. DinnelDepartment of PsychologyWestern Washington University516 High Street

Bellingham, WA, USA 98225-9089Phone: 1 (360)650-3526Fax: 1 (360)650-7305Email: [email protected]

Ted ThompsonSchool of PsychologyGPO Box 252-30

Hobart, 7001Tasmania, AustraliaPhone: +61 3 6226 2887Fax: + 61 3 6226 2883Email: [email protected]

References

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, andstudent motivation. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 84, 261-271.

Baumgartner, A. H., & Levy, P. E. (1988). Role of self-esteem in perceptions of ability and effort: Illogic or

insight? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,14, 429-438.

Benson, J., & El-Zahhar, N. (1994). Further validation ofthe Revised Test Anxiety Scale. Structural Equation

Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 3, 203-221.

Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, andschool achievement: An integrative review. AnnualReview of Psychology, 51, 171-200.

Covington, M. V. & Omelich, C. E. (1979). Effort: Thedouble-edged sword in school achievement. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 71, 169-182.Covington, M. V. & Omelich, C. E. (1985). Ability and

effort valuation among failure-avoiding and failure-accepting students. Journal of Educational Psychology,77, 446-459.

Craske, M. L. (1985). Improving persistence throughobservational learning and attribution retraining.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 138-

147.Crittenden, K. S. (1996). Causal attribution processes

among the Chinese. In M. H. Bond (Ed.) The handbookof Chinese psychology (pp. 263-279). Hong Kong:Oxford University Press.

Dinnel, D. L., & Thompson, T. (2000, October). A

validation and reliability study of the Self-WorthProtection Scale. A poster presented at Self-ConceptTheory, Research, and Practice: Advances for the NewMillennium, Medlow Bath, NSW, Australia.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affectinglearning. American Psychologist, 41,1040-1048.

Edwards, J. A., Weary, G., & Reich, D. A. (1998). Causal

uncertainty: Factor structure and relation to the BigFive Personality Factors. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 24, 451-462.

5
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


6/10


Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach andavoidance goals and intrinsic motivation: Amediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 70, 461-475.Grant, H., & Dweck C. S. (2001). Cross-cultural response

to failure: Considering outcome attributions with

different goals. In F. Salili, C.-Y. Chiu, & Y.-Y. Hong(Eds.) Student motivation: The culture and context oflearning. Plenum series on human exceptinality (xxiv,pp. 203-219). Dordrecht, Netherlands:KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Huber, V. L., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1985). Dispositionaland situational moderators of female and male causalattributions. Sex Roles, 13, 441-461.

Leary, M. R. (1983). A brief version of the Fear ofNegative Evaluation Scale. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 9, 371-375.

Levy, P. E., & Baumgardner, A. H. (1991). Effects of self-esteem and gender on goal choice. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 12, 529-541.Marsh, H. W. (1990). Self-descriptive Questionnaire III

Manual. San Antonio, TX: The PsychologicalCorporation.

McCarry, M., Edwards, H. P., & Rozario, W. (1982). Ego-relevant feedback, affect, and self-serving attributionalbias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8,189-194.

Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving bias in theattribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological

Bulletin, 82, 213-225.Russell, D. (1982). The Causal Dimension Scale: A

measure of how individuals perceive causes. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1137-1145.Schlenker, B. R., Weigold, M. F., & Hallam, J. R. (1990).

Self-serving attributions in social context: Effects ofself-esteem and social pressure. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 58, 855-863.

Schouwenburg, H. C. (1995). Academic procrastination:Theoretical notions, measurement, and research. In J.R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, & W. G. McCown (Eds.)Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research,and treatment(pp. 71-96). New York: Plenum Press.

Thompson, T. (1993). Characteristics of self-worthprotection in achievement behaviour. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 63, 469-488.

Thompson, T. (1997). External attributions for success andavoidance of failure. Psychological Reports, 81, 891-

896.Thompson, T. (1999). Underachieving to protect self-

worth: Theory, research, and interventions. Aldershot,England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

Thompson, T., Cromer, J., & Dinnel, D. L. (2002).Measuring academic self-handicapping: Does it differfrom general self-handicapping? Unpublishedmanuscript, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.

Thompson, T., Crosswell, H., & Dinnel, D. L. (2001).Self-worth protection in mathematics: Effects ofperformance feedback on attributions, claimed and

behavioural self-handicapping. Unpublishedmanuscript, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.

Thompson, T., Davidson, J. A., & Barber, J. G. (1995).

Self-worth protection in achievement motivation:

Performance effects and attributional behavior. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 87, 598-610.Thompson, T., & Dinnel, D. L. (2001). An initial

validation and reliability study of the EvaluationAnxiety Scale. Unpublished manuscript, University ofTasmania, Hobart, Australia.

Vandewalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of awork domain goal orientation instrument. Educationaland Psychological Measurement, 57, 995-1015.

Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 33, 448-457.

Yu, A.-B. (1996). Ultimate life concerns, self, and Chineseachievement motivation. In M. H. Bond (Ed.) Thehandbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 227-246). HongKong: Oxford University Press.

Zoller, U., & Ben-Chaim, D. (1990). Gender differences inexamination-type preferences, test anxiety, andacademic

6


7/10


Table 1

Bivariate Correlations of the Variables in the Study_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________1 ---2 .73** ---

3 .44** .54** ---4 .59** .61** .63** ---

5 -.43** -.36** -.16** -.41** ---6 -.53** -.56** -.52** -.47** .33** ---

7 .37** .45** .36** .33** -.22** -.51** ---8 .30** .35** .44** .33** -.23** -.48** .33** ---

9 -.21** -.16** -.16** -.27** .44** .29** -.16** -.16** ---10 .22** .29** .38** .30** .06 -.17** .18 .15** .20** ---

11 .39** .42** .44** .61** -.38** -.43** .30 .31** -.46** .23** ---12 -.07 -.08 -.02 -.08 .16** .02 -.07 -.01 .09 -.07 -.06 ---13 -.03 .03 -.02 -.09 .06 -.01 -.01 .01 .09 -.01 -.09 .11* ---

14 -.18** -.18** .02 -.06 .20** .22** -.20** -.17** .01 -.09 -.05 .24** -.09 ---

15 .56** .56** .47** .60** -.59** -.63** .38** .40** -.40** .06 .52** -.11* -.05 -.17** ---16 .16** .31** .25** .31** .03 -.09 .08 .04 .21** .41** .08 -.04 .02 .03 .05 ---

17 .36** .42** .35** .57** -.27** -.40** .30** .21** -.35** .17** .62** -.07 -.06 -.01 .50** .21** ---18 -.11 .03 .07 -.05 .31** .18** -.10 -.04 .21** .07 -.03 .15* .13* .19** -.22** .19** -.05 ---

19 -.25** -.23** .01 -.23** .55** .16** -.07 -.06 .22** .08 -.13* .26** -.03 .19** -.29** -.09 -.06 .35** ---_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

**p < .01; *p < .051 = Test Anxiety; 2 = Fear of Failure; 3 = Fear of Negative Evaluation; 4 = Evaluation Anxiety; 5 = Academic Self-Esteem; 6 = Global Self-Esteem; 7 = Causal Uncertainty; 8 = Global Self-Esteem Uncertainty; 9 = Mastery Goal

Orientation; 10 = Approach Performance Goal Orientation; 11 = Avoidance Performance Goal Orientation; 12 =Internal Attributions; 13 = Stable Attributions; 14 = Controllable Attributions; 15 = Ability Doubts; 16 = Importance ofAbility; 17 = Avoidance Orientation; 18 = Cumulative Grade Point Average; 19 = SAT Composite

Table 2Coefficient Alphas, Means, and Standard Deviations for Each Variable in the Study

___________________________________________________________________________

Variable M SD___________________________________________________________________________

Test Anxiety .91 39.38 10.62Fear of Failure .87 24.45 8.11Fear of Negative Evaluation .92 34.55 10.34Evaluation Anxiety .79 61.33 12.75Academic Self-Esteem .83 171.54 30.53Global Self-Esteem .91 39.32 8.13Causal Uncertainty .83 19.68 7.08

Global Self-Esteem Uncertainty .87 24.37 7.96

Mastery Goal Orientation .82 21.89 4.34Approach Performance Goal Orientation .71 14.87 3.90Avoidance Performance Goal Orientation .80 11.01 3.81Internal Attributions .65 19.36 5.50Stable Attributions .71 11.52 6.00Controllable Attributions .58 19.73 5.71

Ability Doubts .80 19.20 6.91Importance of Ability .79 29.07 6.11Avoidance Orientation .80 22.63 6.61Cumulative Grade Point Average ---- 2.81 0.61SAT Composite ---- 1075.90 134.64__________________________________________________________________________

7


8/10


Figure 1:

Model 1: A Structural Model of Self-Worth Protection and Achievement Behavior.

SelfUncertainty

gseu

e1

cu

e2

Self-Esteem

rses

e3

ase

e4

Attributions

int

e5

stab

e6

Goals

mgo

e8

pgoapp

e9

EvaluativeThreat

fne e11

fof e12

Self-WorthProtection

aoe17

iae16

Achievement

gpae19

satce18

rtas e13

evan e14ade15

pgoav

e10

con

e7

r1

r2

r3

r4

r5

8


9/10


Figure 2:

Model 2: An Alternate Structural Model of Self-Worth Protection and AchievementBehavior

SelfUncertainty

gseu

e5

cu

e6

Self-Esteem

rses

e7

ase

e8

Attributions

int

e9

stab

e10

Goals

mgo e12

pgoapp e13

EvaluativeThreat

fne

e1

fof

e2

Self-WorthProtection

aoe17

iae16

Achievementgpae19

satce18

rtas

e3

evan

e4

ade15

pgoav e14

con

e11

r2

r3

r5

r6

r4

r1

9


10/10


Figure 3:

The Final Structural Model of Self-Worth Protection and Achievement Behaviour Showing Standardized Path

Coefficients.

EvaluativeThreat

RTAS

e1

EVAN

e2

SelfUncertainty

GSEU

e3

CU

e4

Attributions

INT

e5

CON

e6

Goals

MGO e7

PGOAV e8

-.53

.66

Self-worthProtection

AOe10

ADe9

.68

.74

AchievementGPAe12

SATCe11

.42

.83

.85

r1r2

r3r4

r5

.83

-.30

-.19.86

-.31

.44 .48

.39 .61

.85.69

.85

10

A structural model of self-worth protection and achievement

Documents

Transcript of A structural model of self-worth protection and achievement