Gender, Female Traditionality, Achievement Level, and Cognitions of Success and Failure

Differences in ratings of initial expectancy of success, perceived scholastic ability, and causal attributions were assessed for male and female high school students for a simulated academic test. Subjects were also differentiated on their achievement level (i.e., under- and overachievement) and the traditionality of their career aspirations. As predicted, higher expectancies were found for high performance achievers and nontraditional females. Males generally made more attributions to lack of effort for failure, as did low performance achievers. Females and high performance achievers attributed success more to effort. Hypotheses concerning differential usage of luck and ability attributions were not supported. Although there was an overall trend for females to be more external, traditionality also mediated causal attributions for females.     

The roles of self-esteem and self-consciousness in the Wortman-Brehm model of reactance and learned helplessness

The present experiments were designed to study the conditions under which failure would enhance or inhibit subsequent task performance. Based on the theory of Wortman and Brehm (1975), it was expected that small amounts of failure would produce reactance (manifested by improved performance at a subsequent task), whereas large amounts would lead to learned helplessness (i.e., impaired later performance). It was further expected that individual differences in self-esteem and private self-consciousness would serve as moderator variables for the above effects. In Experiment 1, subjects were exposed to either a small amount of failure or no failure before working on an anagrams task. As predicted, subjects high in self-consciousness, who have shown greater reactance arousal in attitude change studies, performed better on the anagrams task than subjects low in self-consciousness in the small-failure condition, but not in the no-failure condition. Further analyses revealed that this Self-Consciousness X Small Failure interaction was attributable to the performance data of the low, but not the high self-esteem subjects. Experiment 2 was designed to replicate and extend these results. Subjects were pretreated with either a small amount of failure, an extended amount of failure, or no failure before working on the anagrams task. A significant Self-Esteem X Helplessness Training interaction emerged. Relative to the no-failure condition, in which the two self-esteem groups did not differ, low self-esteem participants (low SEs) performed marginally better than did high self-esteem individuals (high SEs) in the small-failure condition but significantly worse than high SEs in the extended-failure condition. The effect of private self-consciousness was considerably weaker in this study, possibly because the sample included few low SEs (who are especially influenced by self-focused attention) who were also relatively low in self-consciousness. Questionnaire data from Experiment 2 were consistent with the notion that enhanced performance reflected reactance, whereas impaired performance signified helplessness.     

Self-focused attention and belief perseverance

The perseverance of an erroneous belief was investigated in the debriefing paradigm as a function of self-focused attention. Subjects were given either success or failure experiences via bogus performance feedback and received this feedback under high or low mirror self-focusing. All subjects were subsequently debriefed about the false nature of the feedback, and then, before answering questions about their estimated actual performance and ability, mirror self-focus was again manipulated. The results showed that self-focus prior to debriefing increased belief perseverance while self-focus after debriefing reduced the perseverance effects. Discussion of these findings emphasized the role of self-focus in information processing before and adherence to veridical standards after debriefing.     

Performance and motivational deficits of helplessness: the role of motivational orientations

The present study examined the hypothesis that the effect of failure feedback in producing learned helplessness would depend on the motivational orientation of a child. Extrinsically motivated children were predicted to exhibit performance decrement following a failure experience, whereas the opposite was predicted for intrinsically motivated children. In addition, success feedback was predicted to enhance subsequent performance only for the intrinsic group. Following success, failure, or no feedback on an activity reflecting spatial skills (an incomplete picture task), subjects' performance on an activity tapping different skills (i.e., anagrams) provided by a second experimenter served as the primary measure of helplessness. Subjects' intrinsic motivation in performing the incomplete picture task, a similar task (embedded figures) and a dissimilar task (dots-to-dots) was also examined. The results supported the predictions on both performance and intrinsic motivation measures. The results are discussed in terms of implications for learned helplessness as well as cognitive evaluation theories.     

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.     

Durability and generalization of attribution-based feedback following failure: Effects on expectations and behavioral persistence

ObjectiveThis experiment investigated, following perceived failure, the immediate, long-term (i.e., durability), and cross-situational (i.e., generalization) effects of attribution-based feedback on expectations and behavioral persistence.DesignWe used a 3 × 2 (Group × Time) experimental design over seven weeks with attributions, expectations of success, and persistence as dependent measures.Method49 novice participants were randomly assigned to one of three treatment (attributional feedback) groups: (a) functional (i.e., controllable and unstable); (b) dysfunctional (i.e., uncontrollable and stable); or (c) no feedback. Testing involved three sessions, in which participants completed a total of five trials across two performance tasks (golf-putting and dart-throwing). In order to track whether the attributional manipulation conducted within the context of the golf-putting task in Session 2 would generalize to a new situation, participants performed a dart-throwing task in Session 3, and their scores were compared with those recorded at baseline (in Session 1).ResultsAnalysis of pre- and post-intervention measures of attributions, expectations, and persistence revealed that the functional attributional feedback led to more personally controllable attributions following failure in a golf-putting task, together with increases in success expectations and persistence. In contrast, dysfunctional attributional feedback led to more personally uncontrollable and stable attributions following failure, together with lower success expectations and reduced persistence. These effects extended beyond the intervention period, were present up to four weeks post intervention, and were maintained even when participants performed a different (i.e., dart-throwing) task.ConclusionsThe findings demonstrate that attributional feedback effects are durable over time and generalize across situations.     

Advantages of difficult tasks1

If people work on a hard task before proceeding to one of intermediate difficulty, success will be relevant (predictive of future success) while failure will be irrelevant (not predictive of future failure). However, if they work first on an easy task, success will be irrelevant (not predictive of future success) while failure will be relevant (predictive of future failure). Previous research thus suggests that experience with hard tasks should always lead to more favorable evaluations of one's performance and better future performance than experience with easy tasks. The present study tested these predictions by manipulating initial expectancy (high or low), perceived difficulty of a set of practice problems (practice problems easier, harder, or equal in difficulty to those on a subsequent test), and practice problem feedback (success or failure). As predicted, experience with hard practice problems was most beneficial, regardless of the level of the feedback which students received. This was more true for males than females and for students with high ability than students with low ability.     

Same‐gender supervisors protect women's leadership aspirations after negative performance feedback

Two studies examined how the gender of a workplace supervisor can affect a woman's response to performance evaluations and also her professional advancement aspirations. In Study 1, employed women reviewed a performance evaluation in which feedback was manipulated to reflect one of two stereotypes of women (high in warmth or low in competence). Findings showed that participants were more likely to attribute negative (i.e., low competence) feedback from men supervisors to gender biases than the same feedback from women supervisors. There was no effect of supervisor gender when the feedback was positive (i.e., high warmth) or neutral. In Study 2, negative feedback from men supervisors, regardless of evaluative dimension (competence or warmth) resulted in women reporting decreased professional aspirations. This relationship was mediated by women's attribution of supervisor feedback to gender biases. Together, these findings suggest that same‐gender supervisors can potentially buffer women's long term professional aspirations after a discouraging performance review.     

Attributions to discrimination and self-esteem: Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity

This study examined group identification and situational ambiguity as moderators of attributions to discrimination and self-esteem following negative feedback. As predicted, high gender-identified women made more discrimination attributions than low identified women when situational prejudice cues were ambiguous, but not when prejudice cues were absent or overt. Also as predicted, women exposed to overt prejudice cues had higher self-esteem than those exposed to ambiguous cues or no prejudice cues. The relationship between discrimination attributions and self-esteem was positive among women exposed to overt prejudice but negative among those exposed to no prejudice. Across conditions, however, the more that women discounted ability as a cause of their negative feedback (i.e., blamed discrimination more than ability), the higher their self-esteem. Results qualify and extend prior research and demonstrate that personal and situational factors moderate both the tendency to make attributions to discrimination and the consequences of those attributions for self-esteem.     

Aiming at the top? Upward social comparison of abilities after failure

This study examined the effects of feedback on a task on information seeking and partner preferences as forms of social comparison. It was predicted that subjects who experienced failure and perceived control over future performance would, for reasons of self-improvement, choose more strongly upward a comparison other than subjects who experienced success or perceived no control. In the experiment, 121 college students were given either failure, average, or success feedback on a bogus test for either a stable or a controllable ability. Next, the subjects choose a comparison other whose test material they would examine, and a comparison other as a partner for writing an evaluation of the test. As predicted, the preferences for information seeking and affiliation were more strongly upward when subjects experienced failure than when subjects experienced success. Perceived control partly resulted in more strongly upward choices in information seeking for subjects experiencing failure.     

Effects of participative vs assigned goals and feedback in a multitrial task

A dynamic multitrial perspective on goal setting was adopted in order to investigate the effects of both goals (assigned vs participative) and goal-discrepant performance feedback on subsequent goal commitment and performance. Eighty subjects were initially assigned to either an assigned or participative goal condition, and performed a multitrial task with all subjects receiving goal discrepant performance feedback following the first task trial. Assigned rather than participative goal setting led to higher goal commitment, and large goal/feedback discrepancies led to greater reductions in subsequent goals. Because of these goal changes, the ability of initial goals to predict performance decreased over trials. However, when goal commitment, which reflects revised goals, was also considered, the ability to predict performance actually increased over trials. A moderating effect for need achievement was obtained such that higher-need achievers were more goal committed and performed better under participative goal setting than low-need achievers. Discussion focused on the practical and theoretical importance of a dynamic goal-setting perspective in explaining and predicting responses to goals and feedback systems.     

Self-esteem and the effects of success and failure feedback n performance

High and low self-esteem subjects received success or failure feedback regarding their performance on a task described as measuring their sensitivity to other people. Presumably as part of another study, changes in their self-perceptions regarding sensitivity to others were assessed, as well as changes in their performance on a different task Changes in self-perception were greater when the feedback was consistent with subjects' overall level of self-evaluation Task performance following failure was poorer than that following success HSE subjects performed better following success feedback, and LSE subjects performed more poorly following failure There were no significant performance changes for the HSE-failure and LSE-success subjects. The degree of change in self-perception of sensitivity to others was highly correlated with the magnitude of performance changes     

When failing feels good—Relative prototypicality for a high-status group can counteract ego-threat after individual failure

Two studies demonstrate that members of high-status groups (i.e., men and students of business administration) but not members of low-status groups (i.e., women and education students) react with an increase in state self-esteem after an alleged poor performance on a fictitious intelligence test. This Failure-as-an-Asset (FA) effect is only observed when the high-status ingroup (i.e., men) is outperformed by a low-status outgroup (i.e., women). In this case, a poor performance will lead to a strong identification with the ingroup due to high ingroup prototypicality. As predicted, the effects of experiencing success or failure on self-esteem were mediated by identification with the ingroup.     

Proximal antecedents and correlates of adopted error approach: a self-regulatory perspective

The current study aims to further investigate earlier established advantages of an error mastery approach over an error aversion approach. The two main purposes of the study relate to (1) self-regulatory traits (i.e., goal orientation and action-state orientation) that may predict which error approach (mastery or aversion) is adopted, and (2) proximal, psychological processes (i.e., self-focused attention and failure attribution) that relate to adopted error approach. In the current study participants' goal orientation and action-state orientation were assessed, after which they worked on an error-prone task. Results show that learning goal orientation related to error mastery, while state orientation related to error aversion. Under a mastery approach, error occurrence did not result in cognitive resources "wasted" on self-consciousness. Rather, attention went to internal-unstable, thus controllable, improvement oriented causes of error. Participants that had adopted an aversion approach, in contrast, experienced heightened self-consciousness and attributed failure to internal-stable or external causes. These results imply that when working on an error-prone task, people should be stimulated to take on a mastery rather than an aversion approach towards errors.     

Motivation effects of attributions, expectancy, and achievement motivation during the learning of a novel motor task

Several cognitive motivational theories including achievement motivation, attribution theory, and a test of expectancy for future success were linked to explain and predict psychomotor performance. Sixty high- and 60 low-need-achieving male high school students were randomly placed into success and failure feedback conditions, and performance scores on a lever-positioning apparatus were assessed. Following each block of performance trials, fictitious feedback in the form of success and failure information was given, and then each subject rated attribution and expectancy questionnaires. Expectancies for future performance improved more following success than after failure and were generally predicted by attributions to stable elements. Although trends were present, performance scores were unaffected by these cognitive beliefs. However, a significant prediction of performance was obtained when stepwise multiple regression procedures were used with constant error as the criterion variable. The factors of expectancy and luck significantly predicted performance.     

Proximal Antecedents and Correlates of Adopted Error Approach: A Self-Regulatory Perspective

ABSTRACT

The current study aims to further investigate earlier established advantages of an error mastery approach over an error aversion approach. The two main purposes of the study relate to (1) self-regulatory traits (i.e., goal orientation and action-state orientation) that may predict which error approach (mastery or aversion) is adopted, and (2) proximal, psychological processes (i.e., self-focused attention and failure attribution) that relate to adopted error approach. In the current study participants' goal orientation and action-state orientation were assessed, after which they worked on an error-prone task. Results show that learning goal orientation related to error mastery, while state orientation related to error aversion. Under a mastery approach, error occurrence did not result in cognitive resources “wasted” on self-consciousness. Rather, attention went to internal-unstable, thus controllable, improvement oriented causes of error. Participants that had adopted an aversion approach, in contrast, experienced heightened self-consciousness and attributed failure to internal-stable or external causes. These results imply that when working on an error-prone task, people should be stimulated to take on a mastery rather than an aversion approach towards errors.     

The effect of social comparison information on learned helpless and mastery-oriented children in achievement settings

The present study investigates the effect of social comparison information on learned helpless and mastery-oriented children's attributions, behaviour, and affect following a failure experience. Ninety-one fifth grade children experienced failure in the context of high consensus or group failure feedback, low consensus or personal failure feedback or no social comparison feedback. The Jindings point to the robustness of the helpless and mastery response patterns: the behaviour of learned helpless children, as compared to mastery-oriented children, deteriorated following failure regardless of the social comparison feedback they recieved. However, the attributions made by the two groups of children differed. Mastery-oriented children appeared to use social comparison information more accurately in that they appropriately made higher task difficulty ratings when receiving group failure feedback than when receiving personal failure feedback. Learned helpless children were more likely to use a self-derogatory bias and made attributions to their low ability, even when presented with social comparison feedback that was contrary to their bias. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for education and for intervention with learned helpless childrens.     

Not self-focused attention but negative beliefs affect poor social performance in social anxiety: An investigation of pathways in the social anxiety-social rejection relationship

Patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD) not only fear negative evaluation but are indeed less likeable than people without SAD. Previous research shows social performance to mediate this social anxiety-social rejection relationship. This study studied two pathways hypothesized to lead to poor social performance in social anxiety: increased self-focused attention and negative beliefs. State social anxiety was experimentally manipulated in high and low-blushing-fearful individuals by letting half of the participants believe that they blushed intensely during a 5 min getting-acquainted interaction with two confederates. Participants rated their state social anxiety, self-focused attention, and level of negative beliefs. Two confederates and two video-observers rated subsequently likeability (i.e., social rejection) and social performance of the participants. In both groups, the social anxiety-social rejection relationship was present. Although state social anxiety was related to heightened self-focused attention and negative beliefs, only negative beliefs were associated with relatively poor social performance. In contrast to current SAD models, self-focused attention did not play a key-role in poor social performance but seemed to function as a by-product of state social anxiety. Beliefs of being negatively evaluated seem to elicit changes in behavioral repertoire resulting in a poor social performance and subsequent rejection.     

The Fears of Evaluation About Performance (FEAP) Task: Inducing Anxiety-Related Responses to Direct Exposure to Negative and Positive Evaluations

Fears of negative and positive evaluation (i.e., evaluative fears) manifest within performance-based situations (e.g., public speaking, group presentations), particularly among those experiencing social anxiety. Within these performance-based situations, individuals experiencing such evaluative fears frequently display a variety of impairments (e.g., avoidance, nervousness) that might manifest within and across various settings (e.g., employment, school). How do those who experience these fears react to in-the-moment feedback about their performance? We constructed the Fear of Evaluation About Performance (FEAP) task to examine ecologically valid experiences with anxiety when reacting to positive and negative feedback. During the task, participants gave a speech, and subsequent to this and in counterbalanced order, received positive and negative feedback about their speech, with continued assessment of anxiety-related arousal throughout the task. We tested the FEAP task among 127 adults, who provided self-reports of fears of positive and negative evaluation before completing the task. Fears of positive evaluation uniquely predicted arousal following receipt of positive feedback, whereas fears of negative evaluation uniquely predicted arousal following receipt of negative feedback. Relative to participants receiving positive feedback first, those receiving negative feedback first experienced elevated post-feedback arousal, followed by a steep decline in arousal post-positive feedback. Conversely, participants receiving positive feedback first experienced a buffer effect whereby arousal post-negative feedback remained low, relative to the arousal experienced post-negative feedback among those who received negative feedback first. We expect the FEAP task to inform basic science on fears of negative and positive evaluation, as well as treatment planning in applied clinical settings.     

A process analysis of the effects of performance-contingent rewards on intrinsic motivation

In this study, the effects of performance-contingent rewards on intrinsic motivation were examined in comparison to no-reward controls receiving identical performance feedback. A path analytic process analysis was conducted to examine the mediation of reward effects on subsequent task interest. It was hypothesized that competence valuation, or the personal importance of doing well, would be an important mediator of interest in situations where performance feedback was available. Rewards were predicted to affect interest by influencing an individual's valuation of competence, and by altering the competence valuation mediation process. In addition, achievement orientation was hypothesized to interact with reward in affecting importance and the mediation process. Prior to performing an interesting puzzle, high school students were offered a performance-contingent reward, and then indicated how personally important it was to do well. After doing three puzzles, all subjects received positive feedback regarding their performance. Multiple regression analyses indicated that importance was affected by the experimental variables, and had a positive causal impact on subsequent intrinsic motivation. It was found that the promise of performance-contingent reward positively affected importance for low achievers relative to high achievers, and that the mediation of subsequent intrinsic interest by importance differed according to reward by achievement combinations. Additionally, a direct effect revealed that performance-contingent rewards significantly enhanced interest, relative to no-reward controls receiving identical performance feedback.