پدیده دغل باز و خود ناتوان سازی: ارتباط با سبک های فرزند پروری و اعتماد به نفس

Abstract This study examined parental rearing styles and objective confidence in relation to impostor phenomenon (feelings of phoniness experienced by individuals who have achieved some level of success, Clance & Imes, 1978) and self-handicapping tendencies (creation of an impediment to performance as an excuse for possible failure, Jones & Berglas, 1978). Participants (N = 115) completed measures of impostorism, self-handicapping, parental bonding (for each parent) and Esoteric Analogies test with confidence judgments. Impostor feelings were predicted by paternal overprotection and lack of paternal care. Self-handicapping scores were predicted by lack of maternal care. A significant relationship was found between impostorism and self-handicapping. Supporting the nature of the impostor phenomenon, impostors showed a “gap” between assessment of their performance and actual task-related achievements. Gadget timed out while loading

. Introduction Based on clinical interviews with high achieving women, Clance and Imes (1978) suggested the term Impostor Phenomenon (IP) to describe the intense feelings of intellectual phoniness experienced by some of these women. They defined impostors as people who believe that their success in life is “fake” being due to luck, charm or extra hard work, hence they avoid situations where they might be “found out”. Self-handicapping (SH) is one strategy used to avoid negative evaluations, providing for possible failure to be attributed to the handicap, rather than the person. A substantial relationship is known to exist between IP and SH (e.g., Cowman and Ferrari, 2002 and Ross et al., 2001), and the constructs appear to share several affective components, including low levels of self-confidence. Current research as to the developmental antecedents of IP and SH shows that parenting style may contribute to both constructs (e.g., Greaven et al., 2000 and Sonnak and Towell, 2001).

8. Results Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s α’s) for the variables used in this study. Table 1. Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients Variable Mean SD α Imposter Phenomenon Scale 53.61 13.22 .90 Self-Handicapping Scale 50.75 13.76 .76 PBI: Maternal care 26.39 8.78 .92 PBI: Maternal overprotection 11.70 7.47 .86 PBI: Paternal care 22.23 9.40 .93 PBI: Paternal overprotection 10.41 7.03 .87 EAT: Accuracy 85.05 13.48 .76 EAT: Confidence 82.45 11.47 .73 PBI = Parental Bonding Instrument; EAT = Esoteric Analogies Test. Table options Descriptive statistics and the reliability for the IP Scale (M = 53.61, α = .90) are comparable to those reported in the relevant literature (see Cowman and Ferrari, 2002 and Ross et al., 2001). Scores on the SH scale showed a mean of 50.75 which is lower than that reported by the author of the scale (M = 60, see Rhodewalt, 1990). This could be attributed to the cultural differences resulting from the use of a US normed scale on an Australian population. Alternatively, it is possible that this sample is indeed lower on self-handicapping tendencies. Reliability for the SH scale is comparable with research in this area (see Rhodewalt, 1990). The findings for the scores derived from the EAT are similar to those reported elsewhere in the literature (see Stankov, 1999). That is, the overall confidence level corresponds closely to the accuracy level. Reliability coefficients of accuracy and confidence are reasonable. The overall level of accuracy is high (85.05%), suggesting that people found this test rather easy. Table 2 presents correlations between measures employed in this study. As these correlations will be summarized by the path model (reported below), only a short overview of correlations is given here. Table 2. Correlations between measures employed 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 IPS .53⁎⁎ −.10 .25⁎⁎ −.30⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ .08 −.21⁎ −.03 2 SHS −.20⁎ .27⁎⁎ −.21⁎ .22⁎ −.03 −.18 −.12 3 PBI M care −.41⁎⁎ .13 −.12 −.01 −.06 −.32⁎⁎ 4 PBI M overprotection −.12 .41⁎⁎ .06 −.21⁎ .09 5 PBI P care −.20⁎ .09 .03 .03 6 PBI P overprotection −.05 −.11 .02 7 EAT Accuracy .48⁎⁎ .21⁎ 8 EAT Confidence .25⁎⁎ 9 Age 1 IPS = Imposter Phenomenon Scale; SHS = Self-Handicapping Scale; PBI = Parental Bonding Instrument; M = Maternal; P = Paternal; EAT = Esoteric Analogies Test. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. Table options 8.1. Correlations between SH, IP and PBI scales Replicating previous results, self-handicapping tendencies correlate positively with feelings of impostorism. While impostor scores correlate negatively with paternal care/warmth, they show no significant correlation with maternal care/warmth. Also, impostor scores correlate positively with both maternal and paternal overprotection scores. A similar pattern of correlations is evident for the Self-Handicapping Scale, yet there are significant negative correlations between self-handicapping and both parental care/warmth scores. 8.2. Correlations with confidence and accuracy scores of the EAT Confidence judgments correlate positively with accuracy level of the EAT (see Stankov, 1999). Supporting the predictions of this study, higher impostor scores correlate with lower confidence levels, but not with the accuracy score of the test. Self-handicapping scores show no correlation with either measure of this test. Interestingly, there is a significant negative correlation between maternal overprotection and confidence score of the EAT, but not its accuracy. No other parental style has significant correlations with confidence or accuracy scores. 8.3. Correlations with age There are no significant correlations between age and either self-handicapping tendencies or imposter feelings. Replicating previous findings, older people perform better on EAT (Carroll, 1993) and they also provided higher confidence estimates (Stankov, 1999). To examine the relationship between parental styles and IP, SH and self-confidence further, a path analysis was employed using the Maximum Likelihood method from the AMOS program (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). Although causal paths of imposter and self-handicapping tendencies are not entirely clear, it is assumed that parental styles precede and impact on development of both tendencies. Hence, in view of previous findings, care and overprotective parental styles (separately for both parents) and age were entered as five independent variables. The dependent variables were scores on IP and SH scales, and Esoteric Analogies accuracy and confidence estimates. In addition to assessing effects of the independent on the dependent variables (referred to as β’s), the model incorporated the relationship between different independent variables (labeled as correlations or covariates in Fig. 1) and between different dependent variables (indexed as γ coefficients, see Fig. 1). Diagram summarizing the results of path analysis. Fig. 1. Diagram summarizing the results of path analysis. Figure options As a first step, all possible covariances and β’s were built into the model. Then, paths that were not statistically significant (p > .05) were fixed to be equal to zero. Then the relationship between dependent variables (γ’s) was investigated. Only two paths—the path between IP and SH and the path between IP and Self-confidence—were significant. The direction of the former relationship is somewhat easier to establish than the latter. That is, it has been argued that SH strategies are used as a protective measure for people suffering from impostor feelings. So that those feelings are in fact an antecedent of self-handicapping strategies. The nature of the relationship between IP and Self-confidence is more difficult to determine. It is possible that having low levels of confidence in dealing with cognitive problems predisposes people to develop IP. It is also possible that the opposite effect takes place: having IP results in having a lower confidence level. A feedback loop between these two constructs is also likely to exist. The current investigation was not designed to study this issue and current data may only suggest the presence of a relationship between Self-confidence and IP, not a causal link. This issue undoubtedly deserves systematic investigation, for the sake of this model, however, we assume that IP affects the general confidence level. The resulting model has a good fit: View the MathML sourceχ242 = 26.23, χ2/df = 1.09, RMSEA = .03 (its 90% Confidence Interval was .001–.08), GFI = .95 and the Tucker–Lewis index = .98 (see Byrne, 2001). Overall, this model explained 15% of IP, 28% of SH tendencies, 9% of Accuracy and 22% of Self-confidence scores. The model is presented in Fig. 1. When effects of different parental styles are assessed simultaneously (see Fig. 1), feelings of impostorism are affected directly by paternal care only: higher levels of paternal overprotection results in a higher degree of impostorism (β = .23), while more of paternal warmth and care result in lower levels of impostorism feelings (β = −.32). Relationship between both maternal care and maternal overprotection parental styles on impostorism do not reach significance. However, maternal overprotection has an indirect effect on IP via its significant relationship with paternal overprotection tendencies (r = .30). Also, higher levels of maternal care are linked to lower self-handicapping scores (β = −.20). Higher levels of maternal overprotection are negatively related to confidence ratings (β = −.16). Additionally, higher imposter scores related to lower confidence ratings (γ = −.30), but not performance on the EAT. This shows a “gap” in that the higher the impostor scores, the lower the confidence judgments—which does not reflect actual performance on the test. Accuracy and confidence levels of the Esoteric Analogies Test are correlated (r = .48). Also, the older the participants are, the higher is the accuracy of their performance, and the higher are their confidence ratings (β’s = .29 and .31, respectively). Age, however, was not a significant predictor of SH tendencies, but older people tend to report less degree of maternal care (β = −.27).