کاهش تمایل به خود ناتوان سازی: اثر خودتأییدگری
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|38282||2005||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 41, Issue 6, November 2005, Pages 589–597
Abstract Self-handicapping, the creating or claiming of obstacles to one’s performance to influence explanations given for subsequent outcomes, has been shown to have a host of attitudinal and behavioral consequences. Given the wide ranging impact of self-handicapping, it is important to understand the conditions under which self-handicapping is more or less likely to occur. Accordingly, the present study tested the hypothesis that people will be less likely to engage in self-handicapping if they have previously engaged in self-affirmation. The results of this study found that self-affirmation was more effective in reducing self-handicapping behavior when individuals experienced non-contingent success than when they experience contingent success. Theoretical contributions to the self-handicapping and self-affirmation literatures are discussed, as are practical implications. The fact that individuals handicap their chances of success is not a new or rare phenomenon. As early as 1929, the renowned psychoanalyst Alfred Adler observed that patients seemingly engaged in self-defeating behavior (Higgins, 1990). Moreover, anecdotes abound in the popular press regarding “how smart people do dumb things” to undermine their performance effectiveness (Feinberg and Tarrant, 1995 and Fisher, 1996). Self-handicapping is defined as the act of claiming or creating obstacles to influence the explanations given for subsequent outcomes (Berglas & Jones, 1978). According to Berglas and Jones (1978), an individual is motivated to self-handicap out of a desire to protect one’s self-esteem. In the event that s/he performs poorly, the act of self-handicapping is expected to obscure the link between performance and evaluation. As a result, observers cannot conclude that the poor performance is a direct result of the individual’s lack of ability; instead, it appears that the handicap contributed to the negative outcome. By self-handicapping, the individual hopes to preserve the image of competence and self-worth in his/her eyes as well as in the eyes of others (Berglas and Jones, 1978 and Tice and Baumeister, 1990). Thus, self-handicapping is posited to stave off the threat to the self that may arise as a result of poor performance. Self-handicapping is intriguing for several reasons. First, those who engage in it are willing to call attention to, or place obstacles in the way of successful performance, in exchange for the opportunity to protect their ego from the esteem-threatening implications of failure. Second, self-handicapping has been shown to have a variety of behavioral and attitudinal consequences. For example, self-handicapping may enhance or deflate task performance (e.g., Frankel and Snyder, 1978, Leary and Shepperd, 1986 and Rhodewalt and Davison, 1986). In addition, self-handicapping may lead to more or less favorable judgments of the parties who engage in it (e.g., Luginbuhl & Palmer, 1991). Moreover, Greenberg (1996) found that claiming a handicap negatively affected the evaluations of the self-handicapper if observers perceived that they were adversely affected by such behavior. More recently, Siegel and Brockner (2005) found that the claiming of handicaps by organizational leaders had a negative effect on firm value and, under some conditions, the leaders’ own compensation. Given the wide-ranging implications associated with the phenomenon, it behooves researchers to better understand the conditions under which self-handicapping is more or less likely to occur. Whereas a number of studies have sought to identify those factors that trigger self-handicapping behavior (e.g. Greenberg, 1985, Harris and Snyder, 1986 and Tice and Baumeister, 1990), surprisingly little attention has focused on identifying those factors that reduce individuals’ tendencies to self-handicap. In this regard, studies by Rhodewalt, Saltzman, and Wittmer (1984) and Greenberg, Pyszczynski, and Paisley (1985) serve as noteworthy exceptions. Rhodewalt et al. (1984) found suggestive evidence that team membership may reduce an individual’s tendency to self-handicap due to fear of group sanctions. In addition, Greenberg et al. (1985) found evidence that the presence of large monetary incentives diminished individuals’ tendencies to engage in self-handicapping. The present paper draws on a theoretically derived process, self-affirmation, in an attempt to delineate one of the factors that may help reduce individuals’ tendencies to self-handicap. In so doing, we seek to make several important contributions. First, the application of self-affirmation theory to the self-handicapping literature may provide further evidence of the motivational basis for self-handicapping and shed light on its boundary conditions. Second, the exploration of self-affirmation in the context of self-handicapping is expected to extend our knowledge of self-affirmation theory and broaden the contexts in which the theory is applicable.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Results Manipulation checks Non-contingent success A 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA yielded a main effect of the non-contingent success manipulation on the three dependent measures of interest. Relative to individuals in the contingent success condition, individuals in the non-contingent success condition rated the BAT as more challenging (MNon-Contingent Success = 5.15 versus MContingent Success = 3.27, F (1, 103) = 37.33, p < .001, η2 = .27) and felt that they had performed less well on the BAT (MNon-Contingent Success = 3.61 versus MContingent Success = 6.32, F (1, 103) = 17.21, p < .001, η2 = .14). Finally, as the strongest evidence that the non-contingent success manipulation was successful, individuals indicated that they felt less deserving of their favorable performance feedback in the non-contingent success condition than in the contingent success condition (MNon-Contingent Success = 4.29 versus MContingent Success = 6.30, F (1, 102) = 38.44, p < .001, η2 = .27). Self-affirmation A 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA yielded a main effect of the self-affirmation manipulation on individuals’ perceived meaningfulness of the essay-writing task. Individuals in the high level of self-affirmation condition viewed the essay-writing task as more personally meaningful than those individuals in the low level of self-affirmation condition (MHigh Level of Self-Affirmation = 4.88 versus MLow Level of Self-Affirmation = 3.57, F (1, 101) = 4.62, p < .03, η2 = .05). Test of hypothesis Summary statistics and correlation coefficients for all variables are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Summary statistics and correlations for all variables Variable Mean Med. SD Range 1 2 3 4 1. Gender .55 1.00 .50 0–1 1.00 .08 −.02 .18⁎ 2. Success contingency .66 1.00 .47 0–1 1.00 −.07 −.08 3. Self-affirmation .50 1.00 .50 0–1 1.00 .19⁎⁎ 4. Tape selected 3.06 3.00 1.73 1–5 1.00 ⁎ p < .10. ⁎⁎ p < .05. Table options A 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA revealed a significant effect of gender on self-handicapping behavior such that men were more likely than women to choose to listen to a performance-inhibiting tape (Ms = 2.70 versus 3.32, respectively; F (1, 104) = 5.22, p < .02, η2 = .05). Of greater interest was the interaction that emerged between success contingency and self-affirmation (F (1, 104) = 2.32, p = .065, one-tailed, η2 = .02). Among participants in the contingent success condition, the presence or absence of an opportunity to self-affirm did not have a significant effect on their level of self-handicapping (MSelf-AffirmationPresent = 3.33 (SD = 1.79) versus MSelf-AffirmationAbsent = 3.18 (SD = 1.59); simple effect F (1, 104) = 0.10, n.s.). But among individuals in the non-contingent success condition, the presence of an opportunity to self-affirm led to less self-handicapping than did the absence of an opportunity to self-affirm (MSelf-AffirmationPresent = 3.42 (SD = 1.75) versus MSelf-AffirmationAbsent = 2.47 (SD = 1.70); simple effect F (1, 104) = 3.94, p = .025, one-tailed).