University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

"Self" in self -worth protection: The relationship of possible selves to achievement motives and self -worth protective strategies

(USC Thesis Other)

"Self" in self -worth protection: The relationship of possible selves to achievement motives and self -worth protective strategies

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content “SELF” IN SELF-WORTH PROTECTION:
THE RELATIONSHIP OF POSSIBLE SELVES TO ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVES
AND SELF-WORTH PROTECTIVE STRATEGIES
by
Helena Seli
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)
May 2006
Copyright 2006 Helena Seli
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3233834
Copyright 2006 by
Seli, Helena
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3233834
Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
For my husband and son, Girolamo and Thomas Seli;
my mother, Tiiiine Praks;
and in loving memory of my father, Leo Praks.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To my chairperson, Dr. Myron Dembo; my dissertation committee members Dr.
Michalle Mor Barak and Dr. Robert Rueda; my husband, family and friends; and to
all who participated in and helped me organize this study, I extend my gratitude for
your support and time.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication.............................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................iii
List of Tables........................................................................................................................vii
List of Figures.................................................................................................................... viii
Abstract..................................................................................................................................ix
CHAPTER 1. PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK....................... 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem..................................................................................................... 4
Purpose of the Study............................................................................................................. 5
Research Questions............................................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Problem................................................................................................. 6
Methodology.......................................................................................................................... 7
Assumptions........................................................................................................................... 8
Limitations..............................................................................................................................8
Delimitations.......................................................................................................................... 9
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................... 9
Organization of the Study...................................................................................................10
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.........................................................12
Underlying Motives: Fear of Failure and Need for Achievement................................ 14
Integrating Achievement Motives and Self-Worth Protective Strategies 16
Integrating Achievement Motives and Possible Selves.................................... 17
Possible Selves..................................................................................................................... 18
Possible Selves as a Malleable Part of Self-Concept.........................................19
Positive (Hoped-For) and Negative (Feared) Possible Selves......................... 20
Possible Selves and Academic Outcomes...........................................................23
Integrating Possible Selves and Achievement M otives.................................... 26
Integrating Possible Selves and Self-Worth Protective Strategies...................27
Self-Worth Protective Strategies....................................................................................... 28
Self-Worth Theory................................................................................................. 28
Need Achievement Theory and Self-Worth Theory............................ 29
Self-Handicapping.................................................................................................. 32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Predictors and Outcomes of Self-Handicapping................................... 33
Defensive Pessim ism .............................................................................................34
Distinguishing Defensive Expectations from Reflectivity...................35
Predictors and Outcomes of Defensive Pessimism...............................37
Integrating Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism................................38
Self-Protective Strategies, Self-Esteem and Self-Efficacy.............................. 40
Integrating Self-Worth Motivation Theory, Need Achievement Theory
and Self-Worth Protective Strategies.................................................................. 44
Integrating Self-Worth Protective Strategies and Possible Selves.................. 45
Conclusions.......................................................................................................................... 48
Possible Contributions........................................................................................................48
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................50
Research Questions............................................................................................................. 50
Research Design...................................................................................................................50
Population and Sample...........................................................................................51
Instrumentation.......................................................................................................52
Data Collection........................................................................................................55
Data Analysis..........................................................................................................56
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS................................................................................................... 58
Intercorrelations and Bivariate Relationships.................................................... 58
Research Question 1...............................................................................................64
Research Question 2 ...............................................................................................72
Research Question 3...............................................................................................74
Summary................................................................................................................. 75
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION.............................................................................................77
Possible Selves of Community College Students..............................................78
Self-Worth Protective Strategies.......................................................................... 80
Possible Selves, Achievement Motivation and Self-Worth Protection...........83
Recommendations............................................................................................................... 87
REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................90
APPENDICES.....................................................................................................................98
A. Fear of Failure Questions................................................................................98
B. Need for Achievement Questions...................................................................99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi
C. Self-Handicapping Questions....................................................................... 100
D. Defensive Expectations Questions...............................................................101
E. Reflectivity Questions................................................................................... 102
F. Possible Selves Questionnaire...................................................................... 103
G. Survey.............................................................................................................. 104
H. Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research ...........................................108
I. Possible Selves Coding Manual..................................................................... I l l
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
LIST OF TABLES
1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations for
Measured Variables.......................................................................................................61
2. Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Self-Protective Strategies from
Achievement Motives and Possible Selves............................................................... 70
3. Hierarchical Regression Analyses Testing for Moderator Effects Between
Achievement Motives, Balanced Academic and General Possible Selves, and
Self-Worth Protective Strategies.................................................................................73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Mediator Model............................................................................................................ 65
2. Moderator M odel ............................................................................................... 69
3. Plot of Significant Fear of Failure X Balanced General Possible Selves
Interaction......................................................................................................................72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ix
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study was to examine why and how community college
students self-protect by assessing the relationship between self-worth protective
strategies, the underlying achievement motives and self-concept. The study
introduced the construct of possible selves as a way to assess self-concept to the
literature about self-worth protection. A non-experimental quantitative approach
was utilized.
A sample of 256 community college students completed a 53-item survey
assessing their use of self-handicapping, defensive expectations and reflectivity.
Participants also completed items that measured their fear of failure and need for
achievement. In addition, the participants completed the open-ended Possible
Selves Questionnaire, reporting their hopes, fears and expectations for the next
year.
Possible selves added variance above and beyond achievement motives in
explaining self-worth protective strategy use with academic balanced selves having
a relationship with lower degrees of self-handicapping and general balanced selves
with higher degrees of self-handicapping. Additionally, general balanced selves
moderated the relationship between fear of failure and reflectivity such that the
higher the balance between hopes and fears, the higher the reflectivity. Self-
handicapping, defensive expectations and reflectivity were positively correlated
with the fear of failure with self-handicapping and defensive expectations also
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
being negatively correlated with the need for achievement. No relationship between
reflectivity and need for achievement emerged.
Results from the study provided partial support for the notion that possible selves
serve as the cognitive link between motivation and behavior. Possible selves as a
malleable aspect of self-concept may provide educators with a way to help students
who self-protect in detrimental ways. The results of the study also provided support
for the suggestion to deal with reflectivity and defensive expectations as two
separate constructs rather than joining them under the umbrella of defensive
pessimism. Future research is needed to establish the causal links between possible
selves and self-worth protection as well as to solidify the measures of possible
selves and need for achievement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK
In some cases, the motive to protect self-worth is more important for
students than the need to perform well (Covington, 1984). According to self-worth
theory of motivation (Beery, 1975; Covington, 1984, 1992, 1997), the need to
protect self-worth stems primarily from a fear of failure and the implications failure
may have on one’s sense of ability and consequently, self-worth. Researchers
(Covington, 1992; Jones & Berglas, 1978; Norem & Cantor, 1986a) have
established that students use strategies such as self-handicapping and defensive
pessimism to protect their self-worth. In the last two decades, self-handicapping
and defensive pessimism have been the focus of numerous studies (Elliot &
Church, 2003; Jones & Berglas, 1978; Martin, Marsh & Debus, 2003; Midgley,
Arunkumar, & Urdan, 1996; Norem & Cantor, 1986a; Norem & Illingworth, 1993)
because of their detrimental effects in areas such as self-regulation, persistence and
anxiety. In the case of self-handicapping, specifically, grades have been shown to
suffer significantly as well. Despite the valuable insights established by empirical
studies into why and how students self-protect and the consequences of this
behavior, many questions remain.
Background of the Problem
Self-handicappers are individuals who choose impediments to successful
performance that enable them to deflect the reason for failure away from their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
ability on to other causes (Jones & Berglas, 1978). Typical examples of self-
handicapping include procrastination, engaging in little or no practice for upcoming
tasks, and exaggerated test anxiety (Berglas & Jones, 1978; Rhodewalt & Davison,
1986). For example, if a student receives a low grade on a research paper since she
procrastinated and ran out of time, this failure cannot be blamed on her intelligence
but rather a lack of time. Or, if a student claims that he could not study due to his
disruptive roommates, his failure may similarly be deflected away from his
intelligence.
Defensive pessimism involves setting unrealistically low expectations and
thinking through a variety of possible outcomes, including failure, prior to events in
which one’s performance will be evaluated (Norem & Cantor, 1986a, 1986b). For
example, a defensive pessimist may be a nursing student who is anxious before
every hospital rotation and who repeatedly asserts that he is going to do something
to embarrass himself, despite many previous successful hospital rotations. Due to
this expectation of failure, defensive pessimists experience high anxiety.
There exist widely accepted similarities and differences between self-
handicapping and defensive pessimism (Elliot & Church, 2003; Martin, Marsh, &
Debus, 2001, 2003). For example, researchers have established that self-
handicapping and defensive pessimism are both underpinned by a fear of failure
(Elliot & Church, 2003) and are both a priori strategies designed to deal with the
potential of failure (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994). Among the differences, it has been
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
established that while self-handicapping leads to lower grades (Midgley & Urdan,
1995), defensive pessimism necessarily does not (Norem & Cantor, 1986a) since
self-handicapping involves actively choosing an impediment to success while
defensive pessimism is more of a cognitive strategy (Martin, Marsh, & Debus,
2003).
There are also areas of research that require further exploration. While there
are studies that look at self-efficacy and self-esteem in relationship to self-
protective strategies (Martin & Brawley, 2002; Midgley, Arunkumar, & Urdan,
1996; Tice, 1991), the findings are inconsistent and unclear (Martin, Marsh, &
Debus, 2001) and little is known about one’s self-concept in its affect on self
regulation (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994) and self-worth protection. Self-concept as a
cognitive manifestation of one’s underlying motivation is seen as an important
mediator of behavior (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Markus & Wurf, 1987).
Additionally, the literature base reflects a lack of clarity about the
conceptualization of the strategies. Defensive pessimism has been investigated as
one strategy in the majority of studies (Elliot & Church, 2003; Norem & Cantor,
1986a; Norem & Illingworth, 1993; Sanna, 1996; Showers, 1988; Spencer &
Norem, 1996) but as two distinct strategies of defensive expectations and
reflectivity in others (Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 1999, 2001, 2003). Defensive
expectations refer to the unrealistically low expectations while reflectivity refers to
thinking through possible outcomes prior to evaluation. Reflective students do not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
explicitly expect to fail, but rather prepare for it by imagining their emotional
reactions in case of a “worst-case scenario” (Norem, 2001). Additionally, reflective
students strategize to avoid the envisioned negative outcomes and approach the
positive ones. This approach helps reflective students cope with their anxiety and
keep it from interfering with their performance.
As a result of the differences in how defensive pessimism is conceptualized,
there are contradictory findings about the strategies’ underlying motivational
orientation (Elliot & Church, 2003; Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 1999) and their
effects on self-regulation, persistence and performance (Martin, Marsh, & Debus,
2001, 2003; Norem & Cantor, 1986a). Finally, concrete suggestions of how to help
students adaptively deal with their fear of failure and need to protect self-worth
have been proposed only in few writings (Covington, 1998).
Statement of the Problem
There is a lack of a clear conceptualization of self-concept in relationship to
self-worth protection that may add to our understanding about the students’ use of
self-worth protective strategies. An area that needs further exploration is the
relationship between defensive expectations and reflectivity, at times studied as
part of the same strategy and at other times, differentiated from one another. Due to
the lack of understanding, it is difficult to suggest interventions to help students
who self-protect.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
Purpose of the Study
The current study had several purposes. First, the study provides a deeper
understanding of why and how students protect their self-worth by investigating
self-concept as a potential mediator between the underlying achievement
motivation and self-protective strategies. It is important to gain a deeper
understanding of self-protective strategies as some of them have been shown to be
detrimental in areas such as self-regulation, persistence, anxiety and achievement
outcomes. The study looked at possible selves as specific cognitive manifestations
of the students’ self-concept that energize behavior. Possible selves refer to the
future-oriented images of the selves individuals expect and hope to become as well
as the selves they are afraid of becoming (Markus & Nurius, 1986). Second, the
study further differentiates between self-handicapping, defensive expectations and
reflectivity by investigating their relationship to possible selves. Third, the study
investigates the relationship between self-worth protective strategies and the
underlying achievement motives. Specifically, the purpose of the study was to
determine whether reflectivity is predicted by a combination of fear of failure and a
need for achievement.
Research Questions
1. Do possible selves partially mediate the relationship between achievement
motivation and self-worth protective strategies?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
The researcher proposed that possible selves would emerge as a partial
mediator between the underlying achievement motives (fear of failure and
need for achievement) and self-worth protective strategies. In essence,
possible selves were hypothesized to function as the cognitive link between
motivation and behavior.
2. What are the differences in the possible selves generated by students who
self-handicap, have defensive expectations or are reflective?
The researcher proposed that students who self-handicap, have defensive
expectations or are reflective endorse significantly different possible selves.
Specifically, reflective students were hypothesized to generate a
significantly higher balance between their hopes and fears than students
who self-handicap or have defensive expectations. Also, the expectation
was that self-handicappers’ and defensively expectant students’ possible
selves reflect more fear than those of reflective students.
3. What is the relationship between reflectivity and the need for achievement?
The researcher hypothesized that in addition to the avoidance motive (fear
of failure), reflectivity is also positively predicted by the approach motive
(need for achievement).
Significance of the Problem
The current study contributes to the body of literature that assesses the role
of self-concept in behavior by looking at possible selves as a potential mediator
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
between the underlying motives and the self-protective strategies students use. By
investigating the relationship between possible selves, motives and self-protective
strategies, the current study contributes to literature that differentiates between
defensive expectations and reflectivity as distinct strategies. By providing a more
complex understanding of self-protective strategies, the study contributes to the
development of potential interventions for students who engage in them. Namely,
possible selves are a malleable aspect of self-concept (Markus & Nurius, 1986) and
can potentially function as a controllable predictor of self-worth protective
strategies. Since some strategies of self-protection, such as self-handicapping, may
be highly detrimental, by enhancing the students’ possible selves, educators and
counselors may help them deal with their fear of failure and desire to protect their
self-worth in the most adaptive manner.
Methodology
The research adopted a quantitative approach. Data were gathered via a
pencil and paper survey assessing the students’ achievement motives (fear of
failure, need for achievement), possible selves (expected, hoped for and feared),
and levels of self-handicapping, defensive expectations and reflectivity.
Additionally, demographic data about the participants were obtained. The
quantitative data were then analyzed by conducting structural equation modeling
(SEM), linear and hierarchical regression and multiple analysis of variance
(MANOVA).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
Assumptions
The researcher assumes that the measures for fear of failure and need for
achievement, and the measures for self-handicapping and defensive pessimism with
its components of defensive expectations and reflectivity, though generally shown
to be valid and reliable, were also valid and reliable for the population being
studied. Lastly, the researcher assumes that the measure used for possible selves
reliably and validly reflected the participants’ expectations, hopes and fears.
Limitations
The study is limited since the data are based on self-reports. There is a
social desirability concern with self-reports as the only source of data. Additionally,
the subjects may have had different interpretations of the questions, such as, for
example, a different understanding of success and failure. This study is also limited
by the possible presence of any confounding variables such as learning disabilities
or psychological conditions, as well as gender and ethnicity. In addition, the study
is limited by the impact of life circumstances, such as the stress of adjusting to
college. Also, the majority of research about the relationship between possible
selves and educational outcomes has been correlational, rather than cross-sectional
or experimental. Therefore, though theoretically, the relationship between possible
selves and educational outcomes is supported, there is a lack of empirical data to
support the causal nature of the relationship. Consequently, the proposed partial
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
mediational model, though implying causality, can only be interpreted from a
correlational perspective.
Delimitations
This study is confined to studying large metropolitan, public community
college students in Southern California. Students in the courses sampled may not be
representative of the general student body.
Definition of Terms
Defensive expectations: the component of defensive pessimism that refers
to the low expectations when compared with previous performance (Norem
& Cantor, 1986a).
Defensive pessimism: a cognitive strategy in which individuals set
unrealistically low expectations prior to an event in which some form of
evaluation takes place and think through a variety of possible outcomes
before performance (Norem & Cantor, 1986a).
Fear of failure: an achievement motive characterized by avoiding failure
and a capacity to experience shame and humiliation when one fails
(Atkinson, 1957).
Need for achievement: an achievement motive characterized by hope for
success and a capacity to experience pride in accomplishment (Atkinson,
1957).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
Possible selves: future-oriented components of one’s self-concept that
individuals expect and hope to become as well as are afraid of becoming
(Markus & Nurius, 1986).
Reflectivity: the component of defensive pessimism that refers to the
process of thinking through a variety of outcomes for a task (Martin, Marsh,
& Debus, 2001).
Self-handicapping: a cognitive strategy where an impediment is created or
claimed by a person prior to performance so that the cause for failure can be
deflected away from one’s ability (Jones & Berglas, 1978).
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of the study has presented the introduction, the background of the
problem, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be
answered, the research hypotheses, the significance of the study, a brief description
of the methodology, the assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and the definitions
of terms.
Chapter 2 is a review of relevant literature. It addresses the following
topics: 1) fear of failure and need for achievement as the underlying achievement
motives of self-worth protective strategies, 2) possible selves as the potential
mediator between motives and self-worth protective strategies, and 3) an in-depth
discussion of self-handicapping, defensive expectations and reflectivity as self-
worth protective strategies. These topics will be presented in an integrative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
theoretical framework, supporting the notion of partial mediation between the
variables.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in the study, including the
research design; population and sampling procedure; and the instruments and their
selection, together with information on validity and reliability. The chapter also
describes the procedures for data collection and data analysis.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. Chapter 5 discusses and analyzes
the results, culminating in conclusions and recommendations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism are cognitive strategies by
which students cope with their underlying fear of failure and protect their self-
worth (Covington, 1984; Jones & Berglas, 1978; Norem & Cantor, 1986a, 1986b).
Studies have established that these strategies have similar effects in that they can be
detrimental to self-regulation and persistence, and in many cases, to academic
achievement (Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001, 2003). Empirical studies have also
left us with many questions about the differences between the strategies themselves
as well as their predictors and consequences. Specifically, there are problems in
how the strategies are conceptualized which has lead to contradictory research
findings (Elliot & Church, 2003; Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001; Norem & Cantor,
1986a).
In an effort to develop a more complex understanding of self-worth
protective strategies, the current literature review will conceptually integrate
research from motivational and cognitive fields and suggest a bridge between them
via self-concept (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994). Motivational components, such as fear
of failure, provide insight into the question about the “why” of student behavior
whereas cognitive components, such as self-protective strategies, provide
descriptions of “how” students behave through the use of various cognitive
strategies. Traditionally, the motivational and cognitive models have not been
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
integrated as the models have developed separately and pursued distinct research
agendas (Garcia & Pintrich, 1994). Also, the relationship between the motivational
components and self-concept has been rarely discussed in literature, and studies
about self-concept and self-regulation, though appearing to have direct relevance to
each other, have been mostly pursued in literatures that do not overlap (Markus &
Wurf, 1987).
Specifically, this literature review will integrate findings about achievement
motives, possible selves as a future-oriented aspect of self-concept, and self-worth
protective cognitive strategies in order to gain a deeper understanding of why and
how students deal with their fear of failure and protect their self-worth. By
proposing possible selves as a bridge between the underlying motives and cognitive
strategies, the study aims to gain a deeper understanding of “self’ in self-worth
protective strategies. In essence, possible selves as specific images of the self in the
future may enable us to better understand why students self-protect than the more
global measure of self-esteem. As an implication, potential interventions for
students who impair their academic performance by engaging in self-protective
strategies are proposed. The literature review will conclude by indicating directions
for future research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
Literature Review
Underlying Motives: Fear o f Failure and Need fo r Achievement
The nature of achievement motivation has captured the interest of
researchers and theorists since the early 1900s and has continued to modem day
(Atkinson, 1957; Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Eysenck, 1967; Murray, 1938). The most
sophisticated of the early theories of achievement motivation, that of David
McClelland (1965) and John Atkinson (1957, 1964), is still influential today. In
McClelland and Atkinson’s classic conceptualization, two distinct motivational
orientations are delineated: the desire to approach success (e.g., need for
achievement) and the desire to avoid failure (e.g., the fear of failure). The
individuals’ tendencies to strive for success or avoid failure are hypothesized to be
based largely on childhood experiences. Since researchers hypothesize that the
motives are established so early in life, achievement orientation is generally seen as
a relatively stable personality characteristic (Atkinson, 1957).
Approach tendencies are characterized by striving and hope of success
whereas avoidance tendencies are characterized by defensiveness and a fear of
failure (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953). Atkinson (1957) tied
achievement motives to affect: those high in need for achievement experience a
great deal of pride upon success, while those high in fear of failure experience
shame and humiliation upon failure. Essentially, Atkinson suggested that our
behavior is largely driven by emotional anticipation such that individuals with a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
high need to achieve anticipate pride in their accomplishments while persons high
in fear of failure anticipate shame.
Problem behaviors arise when the disposition to avoid failure is stronger
than the need to achieve and when individuals consequently anticipate shame and
humiliation. Atkinson (1957) described such a situation in depth. He suggested that
the avoidant person would have a negative motivation for the tasks that arouse his
fear of failure. Competitive tasks, according to Atkinson, would be experienced as
particularly unattractive. In terms of choice of tasks, Atkinson hypothesized that the
person in whom the motive to avoid failure is stronger than the need for
achievement will select either the easiest of tasks to minimize any chance of failure,
or will be extremely speculative and set his goal where there is virtually no chance
of success and consequently his failure will not cause self-blame and
embarrassment. Thus, Atkinson proposed that a person motivated to avoid failure
would set “their aspiration level either defensively high or defensively low” (p.
365).
Atkinson’s (1957) original conceptualization featured an orthogonal, two-
dimensional system in which individuals could be located not only high or low with
respect to either approach or avoidance tendencies, but could also be characterized
as driven simultaneously by hope and fear, or, on the other hand, people indifferent
to both approach and avoidance dimensions. Atkinson (1957) looked at the special
case of the person in whom the two motives are equal in strength. These people,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
according to Atkinson, are likely to strive for realistic, intermediate-level goals, as
opposed to very low or very high goals. These intermediate goals, according to
Atkinson, would serve as a pathway toward success and away from failure at the
same time.
Integrating Achievement Motives and Self-Worth Protective Strategies
In integrating research literature of motives and self-protective strategies in
the academic setting, several connections can be made. First, illustrating one
hallmark of individuals motivated by fear of failure, that of defensively high or low
goal-setting (Atkinson, 1957), research about self-worth protective strategies has
established that certain students, defensive pessimists, set unrealistically low goals
(Norem & Cantor, 1986b) while others, students who self-handicap, may set
themselves unrealistically high, indeed unachievable, goals. Second, Atkinson
referred to individuals with a pronounced fear of failure being particularly prone to
use defensive strategies in competitive situations. As the school environment is
generally seen as a competitive one with a scarcity of such rewards as approval and
recognition (Covington, 1998), it would follow that the competitive nature of
school is part of the reason for the prevalence of self-protective strategy use among
the student body.
Based on the conceptual ties between achievement motives and self-
protective behaviors, Elliot and Church (2003) conducted a study with the goal of
investigating the relationship between self-worth protective strategies and the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
underlying motives. They established that fear of failure indeed was the motive that
underpinned both self-handicapping and defensive pessimism. Need for
achievement, on the other hand, was found to be a negative predictor of self-
handicapping but having no relationship to defensive pessimism. (It is important to
mention here that Elliot and Church did not study defensive expectations and
reflectivity as distinct strategies.) This null relationship, according to the authors,
suggests that “need for achievement may be a positive predictor of defensive
pessimism for some, but a negative predictor for others” (p. 388). Elliot and Church
suggested that this possibility warrants future research attention as it not only has
implications for how defensive pessimism is conceptualized, but also whether
different processes and outcomes stem from different types of defensive pessimism.
The current study will address this concern by replicating Elliot and Church’s
(2003) study as part of its research design while differentiating between defensive
expectations and reflectivity.
Integrating Achievement Motivation and Possible Selves
Elliot and Church’s (2003) study established a direct link between the
underlying motives and cognitive strategies. Theorists, though, suggest that while
some motives such as hunger or thirst appear to work directly to energize behavior,
others, such as the need for success and achievement, do not appear to activate
behavior directly (Markus & Nurius, 1986). Similarly, Garcia and Pintrich (1994)
suggested that there is a “bridge” (p. 128) between the motivational and cognitive
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
components, such as strategy choice. The present study will next propose possible
selves as this bridge, a cognitive manifestation of the underlying achievement
motives and a link to self-protective strategies.
Possible Selves
Possible selves are representations of the self in the future (Markus &
Nurius, 1986). They are selves individuals expect to become, hope to become and
are afraid to become. In essence, possible selves represent self-relevant goals
(Borkowski & Thorpe, 1994). Possible selves originate when children reach
adolescence and acquire increased abstract reasoning ability. It is then that they
begin to establish a sense of the future selves they can become in addition to the
selves they already are (Oyserman, 2001). In late adolescence, these possible future
selves become increasingly central to motivation and self-regulation (Oyserman &
Fryberg, 2005).
Possible selves are rooted in one’s past and present experiences. They are
cognitive manifestations of the underlying, mostly unconscious achievement
motives of fear of failure and need for achievement. In addition to past experiences,
possible selves reflect more recent and current life circumstances and behavior,
such as one’s experience in the academic setting. Specifically, students with past
and present high performance may have an easier time imagining positive academic
selves than students with low performance (Leondari, Syngollitou, & Kiosseoglou,
1998). Additionally, possible selves reflect the ways in which the self is socially
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
determined and constrained. Significant others (e.g., parents, role models, and
media images) are used to create one’s possible selves. Also, racial, ethnic and
gender identities are important in the creation of possible selves. When social
contexts lack images of certain possible selves, possible selves in this domain are
likely to be missing entirely or will be so global as to be useless as a self-regulatory
mechanism (Oyserman & Fryberg, 2005). Most importantly, possible selves are
always social and as social contexts shift, so too may possible selves.
Possible Selves as a Malleable Part o f Self-Concept
The question of malleability of self-concept has been an important one for
applied researchers for decades (Markus & Wurf, 1987). What used to be seen as
an apparently singular, static, “lump-like” (Markus & Wurf, 1987, p. 301) entity
has become interpreted as a multidimensional, multifaceted dynamic structure.
Recently, an emphasis on the multidimensionality of self-concept has led to the
realization that it is feasible to refer to the working, on-line, or accessible self-
concept (Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1986; Rhodewalt, 1986). This formulation allows for
self-concept to be seen not as a fixed or static self, but only a current self-concept
constructed from one’s past experiences and present circumstances. In effect, it
allows for a self-concept that is at once “both stable and malleable” (Markus &
Wurf, 1987, p. 306).
The working self-concept is drawn from the self-system which contains a
vast repertoire of self-representations (e.g., self-schemas, possible selves), plans,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
strategies, and rules for behavior (Markus & Ruvolo, 1989). Possible selves
function as they become part of the working self-concept (Markus & Kunda, 1986;
Markus & Nurius, 1986), triggered by self-relevant events, such as an exam or
another academic performance evaluative situation. Although people cannot always
control what becomes active in the working self-concept, Markus and Ruvolo
(1989) assume that individuals are often able to deliberately recruit possible selves
to motivate themselves. Further, as self-concept in general is both stable and
malleable, so are possible selves. This fact has important implications in the
context of the current study.
Positive (Hoped For) and Negative (Feared) Possible Selves
Possible selves are thought to influence the individual in two ways: on one
hand providing a clear goal to strive for - if they are positive - or to avoid - if they
are negative. The positive expected or hoped for selves could include satisfaction
with work, being a good student (e.g., “I will get through my freshman year
satisfactorily”) and having a healthy family. Negative possible selves could include
failure in schoolwork (e.g., “I will flunk school”), loneliness or poverty. Thus,
some possible selves are symbols of hope whereas others are reminders of bleak,
sad and tragic futures that are to be avoided.
Markus and Nurius (1986) suggested that possible selves can be very
motivating, particularly as they are hypothesized to fuse aspects of both
performance and the eventual outcome of that performance (e.g., “me as a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
successful college graduate”; Markus & Ruvolo, 1989). According to Markus and
Ruvolo (1989), experiencing a positive possible self can produce positive affect
and activate plans and strategies relevant to achieving this outcome state. For
example, a student who has identified becoming a nurse as a hoped for possible self
is more likely to work hard to graduate from high school and obtain vocational
training than a student who has not yet thought about a career. Negative possible
selves, on the other hand, may be “imprisoning because their associated affect and
expectations may stifle attempts to change or develop” (Markus & Nurius, 1986, p.
963). Also, negative possible selves may be associated with anxiety that can hurt
performance by reducing the amount of attention a person can give to the task
(Sarason, 1984). This anxiety may lead individuals to resort to self-defeating
strategies (Covington, 1986). Overall, in contrast to positive possible selves that are
likely to carry information about what to do to become the desired self, negative
possible selves are more likely to reflect what not to do and do not carry
information about how to avoid the feared self.
Oyserman and Markus (1998) have further proposed that a given possible
self will have maximal motivational effectiveness when it is balanced by a
countervailing possible self in the same domain. Individuals with balanced possible
selves have both a positive goal to strive for and are aware of the personally
relevant consequences of not meeting that goal. For example, an expected self of
“passing ninth grade” might be paired with a feared self of “flunking out of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
school.” Thus, the presence of a feared negative outcome can serve as additional
motivation for striving towards a positive goal.
When an individual has balanced positive and feared possible selves, only
strategies that simultaneously increase the possibility of attaining the positive self
and avoiding the negative self will be attempted (Oyserman & Markus, 1990).
Consistent with this idea, Oyserman, Gant and Ager (1995) found that a balance
between positive academic selves and negative academic selves was related to the
formulation of strategies to avoid feared academic selves. Further, when a positive
possible self is available to counter a negative one, the negative possible self and
the associated anxiety can actually have beneficial effects on performance. The
individual with balanced possible selves in the same domain may actually use their
anxiety as a stimulus for better performance, whereas those without a balance are
likely to be overwhelmed by anxiety (Markus & Ruvolo, 1989). In fact, Markus
and Ruvolo (1989) suggested that a balance between one’s positive and negative
possible selves in a given domain creates a more intense and a more directed
motivational state than either an expected positive possible or feared possible self
alone.
The most interesting findings about the balance in possible selves stem from
Oyserman and Markus’ (1990) and Oyserman and Saltz’ (1993) studies with
delinquent (incarcerated) and nondelinquent youth. Oyserman and Markus found
that the nondelinquent youth showed significantly more balance between their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
positive and negative possible selves than did the incarcerated youth. Specifically,
more than 81% of the nondelinquent youth had at least one match between their
positive and negative possible selves, whereas this was the case for only 37% of the
delinquent groups. Of the delinquent youth in Oyserman’s sample, 33% to 37%
feared becoming a criminal. This feared possible self was not balanced by
expectations that focused on avoiding crime and attaining conventional
achievement. As a result of lack of balance between positive and negative possible
selves, delinquent youth felt a sense of hopelessness (Oyserman & Markus, 1990).
Similarly, Aloise-Young, Hennigan and Leong (2001) looked at the relationship
between possible selves and health risk behaviors such as cigarette smoking and
alcohol consumption. They established that youth who smoked and drank more had
significantly fewer balanced possible selves than those who engaged in such risky
behaviors to a lesser degree.
Possible Selves and Academic Outcomes
In addition to delinquent and health behaviors, possible selves have been
linked to academic achievement. In a study of female college students, those with
positive math and science possible selves performed better on a math test than
those who either did not have or had negative math and science possible selves
(Lips, 1995). In samples of high-risk students from backgrounds of poverty, when
youth had more academically focused possible selves and strategies to attain them,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
they had significantly higher grades when compared with youth lacking these
possible selves (Oyserman, Bybee, Terry, & Hart-Johnson, 2004).
Research on the relationship between possible selves and school attainment
has been primarily correlational (Lips, 1995; Oyserman, Bybee, Terry, & Hart-
Johnson, 2004), comparing outcomes for individuals who differ in self-concept
rather than
attempting to change self-concept directly and assess the effects of this change.
Recently, however, Oyserman, Terry and Bybee (2002) as well as Hock, Deshler,
and Schumaker (2003) have implemented programs that manipulated an
individual’s possible selves and assessed whether these changes would improve
school engagement and achievement.
Oyserman, Terry and Bybee (2002) developed a program that promoted the
development of detailed, plausible, academically focused positive possible selves
that could help the youth feel connected and involved with school. They focused
specifically on low-income African American youth due to the combined risk of
fewer minority role models for success and more neighborhood exposure to
unemployment, crime and other risk factors. Specifically, Oyserman et al. (2002)
developed a sequence of activities and tasks that would provide youth with
experiences of creating more explicit academic possible selves. In addition, the
program gave the students an opportunity to create comprehensive, plausible
strategies to achieve a positive academic self in the short term and then connect that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
self to one’s hoped for adult selves in the long term. The program took place
weekly after school during a nine-week period. During the sessions, students were
given concrete experiences imagining adulthood and opportunities to concretize the
connection between current behavior and the future. Additionally, students were
exposed to racial-ethnic minority adult role models from their community. By the
end of the school year, intervention youth reported more bonding to school,
concern about doing well in school, balanced possible selves, plausible strategies to
attain these possible selves, better school attendance, and for boys, less trouble at
school. In summary, Oyserman et al. found that a short group-based intervention
can effectively enhance academic possible selves and improve engagement.
Similarly, Hock, Deshler and Schumaker (2003) developed the Possible
Selves Program and assessed its success with student athletes in a longitudinal
study. The activities of the program guided students through the process of thinking
about their hopes, expectations, and fears for the future. Once the students
described their possible selves, they created a possible selves tree, a drawn picture
with branches and other elements representing their possible selves. The tree was
used as a metaphor to help students examine the key roles they will assume in their
life, their hopes, expectations and fears for the future. As the final step, the students
were challenged to evaluate and take action to nurture their tree so it can become
strong and well balanced. The Possible Selves Program took six to eight hours and
was presented to students in one-on-one interactions with a counselor. At the end of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
six years, the possible selves group earned higher grade point averages, had higher
retention and graduation rates, and outperformed the control group on measures of
role identification and goal setting in personal, academic and athletic life.
In trying to provide an explanation of how possible selves actually
enhanced academic engagement and performance, Hock et al. (2003) suggested that
the possible selves intervention is related to cognitive goal theory (Blumenfeld,
1992). Specifically, research related to cognitive goal theory (Bandura, 1997;
Dweck, 1986) suggests that academic motivation seems to be directly related to the
pursuit of meaningful and specific goals. Based on these findings, Hock et al.
interpreted that once students began to see the relevance of academic skills and
knowledge to their future goals as represented by their possible selves, a
commitment to learning followed. Recently, conceptual thinking has also tied goal
attainment theory to the construct of hope (Snyder, 1994). Based on this conceptual
tie, Hock et al. additionally suggested that possible selves may create actual hope
for the students where there was none and that this hope may translate into
“willpower (agency) and way power (pathway) for goals” (p. 9).
Integrating Possible Selves and Achievement Motives
Markus and Nurius’ (1986) theorized that the unconscious motives such as
fear of failure and need for achievement have a cognitive manifestation in possible
selves. Thus, possible selves are viewed as specific cognitive forms that give focus
and direction to the underlying motives (Markus & Ruvolo, 1989). What
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
distinguishes possible selves from other forms of personal goals is that they are
highly self-relevant. For example, it is not the abstract “getting a BA” that is
represented in a hoped for possible self of a sophomore. Instead, this goal is
represented as the particular individual himself or herself achieving that goal, that
is “my getting a BA” or “my having a BA” (Markus & Nurius, 1986).
This researcher proposes that possible selves are an especially appropriate
manifestation of the underlying motives as possible selves are one of the few self-
concept-related constructs that consider both the approach (i.e., trying to attain a
positive outcome) and avoidance (i.e., trying to avoid a negative outcome) forms of
regulation. Most other self-constructs, such as personal goals, self-standards and
images of the self in the future deal almost exclusively with approach forms of
regulation (Elliot & Thrash, 2002).
Integrating Possible Selves and Self-Worth Protective Strategies
As discussed earlier, possible selves are viewed as cognitive organizations
of the underlying motives. Furthermore, possible selves function as catalysts for
future behavior. Garcia and Pintrich (1994) suggested that incorporated within self
schema, such as possible selves, are general plans for enacting these selves since “if
individuals have particular self-conceptions, then they must have some implicit
notions of how they became that way (past selves) or how they may stay that way
(present selves) or how to become that way (future selves)” (p. 134). Also,
Borkowski and Thorpe (1994) suggested that once an individual envisions a future
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
self, he or she taken the first step on actualizing or developing self-regulatory
processes. In other words, theorists suggest that we regulate our behavior to
become the hoped for possible selves and work to avoid becoming feared possible
selves.
Additionally, possible selves as future-oriented concepts are particularly
relevant to studying self-worth protective strategies as the latter are also future-
oriented, anticipatory in nature. The relationship between possible selves and self-
protective strategies will be discussed in depth in the following section.
Self-Worth Protective Strategies
Self-Worth Theory
Self-worth theory (Covington, 1984, 1992, 1997; Covington & Beery,
1976) argues that the need for self-acceptance and the resulting positive sense of
self-worth is the highest human priority. In the school setting, ability is often
perceived as the major cause of success and failure. Therefore, ability becomes a
central part of a student’s self-definition with high ability resulting in high self-
worth. In fact, many students perceive themselves only as worthy as their ability to
achieve competitively. Indeed, in some cases, the motive to protect self-worth is
even more important to students than the need to perform well (Covington, 1998)
and students may engage in self-worth protective strategies that may cause the very
failures they are trying to avoid. For instance, this is the case when students
jeopardize their standing in school by procrastinating or by taking on too heavy a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
course load and virtually ensuring failure. In such cases, however, the students feel
that they are “failing with honor” (Covington, 1984, p. 12) since their failure
reflects little on their ability. In essence, the students’ low achievement is often
“less a matter of being unmotivated than of being overmotivated [italics original]
but for the wrong reasons” (Covington & Roberts, 1994, p. 176).
Need achievement theory and self-worth theory. Self-worth theory
incorporates a motivational component (Covington, 1984) by focusing attention on
the approach and avoidance tendencies implied in McClelland (1960) and
Atkinson’s (1957) theories of achievement. According to self-worth theory of
motivation (Beery, 1975; Covington, 1984, 1992, 1997), the need to protect self-
worth stems primarily from a fear of failure and the implications failure may have
on one’s sense of ability and consequently, self-worth.
Although Atkinson’s (1957) original conceptualization was a quadripolar,
two-dimensional model, up until the conceptualization of self-worth theory (Beery,
1975; Covington & Beery, 1976), the bulk of research dealing with the approach
and avoidance tendencies represented them as unidimensional with success
orientation at one pole and failure avoidance at the other (Martin, Marsh, & Debus,
1999). Covington and Omelich (1991) were among the first to look at Atkinson’s
model in its original conceptualization as a quadripolar one and applied it to their
area of interest, self-worth motivation. Based on this integration, Covington and
Omelich identified four types of students with differing underpinning motivational
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
orientations. The first type is success-oriented students whose primary defining
characteristic is approach motivation, coupled with a willingness to set realistic
goals. These students, according to Covington, are likely to be relatively immune to
failure-oriented strategies. The remaining three quadrants represent individuals who
may engage in defensive and potentially self-defeating strategies in response to the
underlying strong avoidance motivation. These maladaptive orientations are:
overstrivers (high approach/high avoidance), failure avoiders (high avoidance/low
approach), and failure acceptors (low avoidance/low approach). In Covington’s
(1984,1994) description, overstrivers remain doubtful of their abilities despite an
enviable record of accomplishments, failure avoiders create excuses either in
advance of actually failing or after the fact by making excuses retrospectively, and
failure acceptors’ behavior reflects resignation after efforts to protect their sense of
competency have completely failed.
Having studied the underlying motivation, Covington (1992) and his
colleagues also studied the specific strategies by which students protect their self-
worth. Among the maladaptive tendencies that students use to avoid failure or to
alter its meaning are self-handicapping and defensive pessimism. As will be
discussed more fully, self-handicapping (Jones & Berglas, 1978) is a strategy
where individuals deal with their fear of failure by constructing obstacles to
success, such as effort withdrawal, so that if failure occurs, it is attributed to the
impediment rather than to one’s ability or intelligence. Defensive pessimists, on the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
other hand, alter the meaning of failure by preparing themselves for failure as well
as setting lower and safer standards against which to be judged. Thus, self-
handicapping and defensive pessimism share a common motivational base, but
there are also several differences in the strategies.
It is important to point out that self-handicapping and defensive pessimism
are cognitive strategies rather than personality traits, such as pessimism. In being
strategies rather than traits, they are assumed not to be stable over time and
situations, but rather situation-dependent (Norem, 2001). Essentially, an individual
may use defensive pessimism in one situation, such as the academic setting, but
optimism in another, such as sports. Since the strategies are based on one’s
assessment of the situation, given changes in how one evaluates a situation,
“significant changes in the construal of self, beliefs about the world, or appraisal of
goals, one might expect corresponding strategy change” (Norem, 2001, p. 95).
Therefore, self-protective strategies are potentially malleable.
Additionally, self-handicapping and defensive pessimism are cognitive
strategies in the sense that they capture what people think about situations, but they
may not necessarily be available for consciousness while being used (Norem,
2001). Sometimes people recognize that they self-handicapped after an event or
they recognize themselves in watching another person self-handicap but may not
have been aware of their strategy use while they actually used it.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
Self-Handicapping
Self-handicapping as a self-protective cognitive strategy refers to the
creation of or claim of an impediment by a person prior to performance or an
evaluative event (Berglas & Jones, 1978). Such impediments may be either an
active behavior (e.g. choosing to study in a disruptive environment) or a lack of
behavior (e.g. withdrawing all effort from studying). Typical examples of self-
handicapping include procrastination, exaggerated test anxiety, the choice of
performance-debilitating circumstances, and excessive drinking of alcohol prior to
an evaluative event (Rhodewalt & Davidson, 1986). Through this type of strategic
maneuvering, individuals are able to claim that they failed due to a lack of effort or
other controllable reason rather than due to lack of ability, an uncontrollable reason.
On the other hand, if individuals end up being successful despite employing low
effort, this success will be seen as implying high ability. In essence, self-
handicapping can be experienced as a no-lose situation by students with a dominant
fear of failure.
The important aspect of self-handicapping is that it is an anticipatory
strategy that individuals use to influence others’ perceptions regarding the cause of
failure. An evaluative situation is somewhere in the future, and the individual is
working to construct conditions that can function as plausible alternative reasons
for possible failure outcome than low or lack of ability. Thus, self-handicapping is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
not a post hoc, reactive rationalizing for an actual failure outcome (Garcia &
Pintrich, 1994).
Research is conflicted about whether self-handicapping is mainly a
protective strategy or whether it also has elements of augmenting one’s self-worth.
This categorization is based on Kelley’s (1972) work. Kelley suggested that the
protection principle functions such that failure under some circumstances is not
considered proof of incompetence while the augmentation principle functions such
that success, despite the presence of performance-hindering factors, is certain proof
of competence. In general, research suggests that self-handicapping functions out of
the need to protect oneself. Urdan and Midgley (2001), specifically, suggested that
all self-handicapping behavior is based on fear of failure and the desire to protect
one’s self-worth. The present study adopts the perspective that self-handicapping is
a protection-based strategy, underpinned by avoidance motivation.
Predictors and outcomes o f self-handicapping. Among the predictors of
self-handicapping, researchers have identified an entity theory of ability, an
external attributional orientation, performance-avoidance goals and uncertain
personal control (Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001; Midgley & Urdan, 1995).
Although theorists have speculated about the relevance of achievement-related
motives, such as fear of failure and need for achievement (Jones & Berglas, 1978;
Snyder, 1990), Elliot and Church (2003) reported that these antecedents were not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
examined empirically until their study which established that self-handicapping is
positively related to fear of failure and negatively related to need for achievement.
Research about the consequences of self-handicapping has been mixed.
While some have demonstrated positive consequences such as enhanced
performance and the minimized impact of failure (Rhodewalt & Hill, 1995), others
(Covington, 1992) argue that self-handicapping is almost always detrimental,
especially in the long term. Specifically, self-handicapping has been related to an
increased likelihood of failure, poor performance, and negative affect (Midgley,
Arunkumar, & Urdan, 1996; Midgley & Urdan, 1995) as well as low persistence,
poor self-regulation and even withdrawal from studies (Martin, Marsh, & Debus,
2001).
Defensive Pessimism
Defensive pessimism (Norem & Cantor, 1986a) is a cognitive strategy in
which individuals set unrealistically low expectations (defensive expectations)
prior to an event in which some form of evaluation takes place and think through a
variety of possible outcomes (reflectivity) before performance. By adopting this
approach, defensive pessimists prepare themselves for the possibility of failure.
This thinking-through and preparation process allows defensive pessimists to feel
less anxious, more in control, and able to invest effort into the task. Consequently,
research (Norem & Cantor, 1986a, 1986b) has shown that, in many cases, the
performance of defensive pessimists does not differ from that of strategic optimists.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
Defensive pessimism, similar to self-handicapping, is an anticipatory
strategy. Defensive pessimists engage in prior-to-the-event thinking (“I wish I
could have more time to prepare before the exam” and “I could fail if I do not get
all my studying done”) which allows them to feel less anxious and more in control.
Due to this sense of less anxiety and more control, defensive pessimists are able to
apply increased effort to the task (Garcia et al., 1995). In that aspect, they are
clearly distinguished from self-handicapping, a self-protective strategy that often
relies on the removal of effort (Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001). Additionally, a
distinguishing feature between students that self-handicap and are defensively
pessimistic is that defensive pessimists do not actively set up impediments to their
performance.
Distinguishing defensive expectations from reflectivity. Initially, Norem
and Cantor (1986a) defined defensive pessimism as strategy where “people set
unrealistically low expectations prior to entering a situation in order to prepare
themselves for potential failure and to motivate themselves to work hard in order to
avoid that failure” (p. 1209). This definition emphasizes the role of defensive
expectations. In the Defensive Pessimism Questionnaire devised by Norem and
Cantor (1986a), defensive expectations are measured by an item such as “I go into
academic situations expecting to do worse, even though I know I will probably be
ok.” Defensive expectations lower the standard for performance, therefore lowering
the potential of failure and its implications on one’s self-worth.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
In later conceptualizations of defensive pessimism (Norem & Illingworth,
1993), reflectivity, the strategy of thinking through all possible outcomes, was
formally incorporated into the construct. In the Defensive Pessimism
Questionnaire, items such as “I carefully consider all possible outcomes before
tests and assignments” (Norem, from personal communication with Martin, March
26, 1997; March 7, 1998) measure reflectivity. Importantly, reflectivity does not
include the explicit expectation of low performance, but rather refers to thinking
about the potential of it.
In the definition used in some recent studies (Elliot & Church, 2003),
defensive expectations and reflectivity are both integral to the construct of
defensive pessimism. However, there may be an important difference between
reflecting or simply thinking about various outcomes and actually expecting those
outcomes. Research unrelated to defensive pessimism by Sherman, Skov, Hervits
and Stock (1981) investigated this difference and established that while explicitly
expecting failure had negative effects on performance, the thinking through process
did not. Indeed, Martin, Marsh and Debus (2001, 2003) demonstrated that
defensive expectations lead to reduced self-regulation and persistence, but
reflectivity in fact increased these outcomes. As another finding that supports the
idea of studying defensive expectations and reflectivity as two distinct strategies,
Martin, Marsh, & Debus (2001) found that defensive expectations and reflectivity
shared less than 18% of variance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
Though recently, clear support has been provided (Martin, Marsh, & Debus,
2001, 2003) for the suggestion to treat defensive expectations and reflectivity as
two different strategies, research is not unified about this distinction. As a result,
there are contradictory findings between studies by Martin, Marsh and Debus
(2001, 2003) and Elliot and Church (2003). For example, Elliot and Church found
that defensive pessimism had no relationship to mastery orientation while Martin,
Marsh and Debus established that the reflectivity component was clearly related to
a mastery orientation. Additionally, Martin et al’s (2001, 2003) recent findings of
defensive expectations being negatively related to self-regulation and persistence
contradict the results of much of previous research where defensive pessimism as a
whole was seen as a positive predictor of self-regulation and effort expenditure
(Norem & Cantor, 1986a, 1986b).
Predictors and outcomes o f defensive pessimism. Researchers have
established that defensive pessimism is predicted by a fear of failure (Elliot &
Church, 2003) and uncertain personal control (Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001).
Martin, Marsh and Debus’ (2001) study, though, suggests that the reflectivity
component is also predicted by success orientation, and that the resulting strategy
may reflect a balance between the two. The present study will pursue this
possibility and look at reflectivity as potentially being predicted by need for
achievement and the resulting positive possible selves.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
Many studies have been concerned with the outcomes of defensive
pessimism. The early studies (Norem & Cantor, 1986a, 1986b) established that in
the short term, defensive pessimism did not have detrimental effects on
performance. In essence, the explicit low expectations of defensive pessimists did
not become a self-fulfilling prophecy and high anxiety did not interfere with their
performance. However, one study (Norem & Cantor, 1990) found that in the long
term, defensive pessimists had lower grade-point averages than their optimistic
counterparts and experienced more global life stress and less satisfaction with their
lives. These findings are generally supported by Martin, Marsh and Debus’
research (2001, 2003) which showed that neither defensive expectations nor
reflectivity lead to lower grades in the short term (over a one-year period).
However, Martin et al. (2001, 2003) also studied persistence, self-regulation, future
academic plans, and index of withdrawal in the second year. They found that
defensive expectations negatively predicted self-regulation and that students high in
defensive expectations were not inclined to persist with tasks in the face of
challenge. Since lower levels of self-regulation and persistence have been related to
lower performance (Zimmerman, 2000), the implication of Martin et al’s finding is
that defensive expectations by themselves indeed may lead to lower grades in the
long term. Reflectivity, on the other hand, positively predicted self-regulation and
persistence, and had a positive effect on the grades in the long term as well.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
Integrating Self-Handicapping and Defensive Pessimism
Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism are both cognitive strategies
that students use to protect themselves from potential failure and its implications on
their self-worth. They are both anticipatory, a priori strategies that address the
potential of failure rather than reacting to actual failure. Garcia and Pintrich (1994)
theorized that both strategies are activated by negative self-schemas. Specifically,
Garcia and Pintrich wrote that “self-handicapping may be a strategy in which one
engages when negative self-schemas (e.g., “I’m a failure at X”) are activated in the
working self-concept” (p. 136) and that defensive pessimism “can be thought of as
being driven by negative “failure” self-schemas, perhaps arising from being in
highly competitive environments that make salient the differences in ability” (p.
137). This relationship between self-schemas and self-protective strategies, though,
has not been established.
Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism seem to have a great deal in
common. There are, however, important differences as evidenced in the previous
discussion of the predictors and outcomes of both strategies. Self-handicapping
appears to be the most detrimental of self-worth protective strategies and
reflectivity the least detrimental. Indeed, Martin, Marsh and Debus’ (2001) findings
suggest that reflectivity may be an adaptive strategy from the perspective of self
regulation. In order to assist students in dealing with their fear of failure and the
need to protect their self-worth in the most effective and least detrimental manner, a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
more complex understanding of the strategies is necessary. With this goal in mind,
the researcher proposes a further look at the underlying motives as well as an
investigation of self-concept via possible selves as the bridge between those
motives and cognitive strategy choice. In essence, it is by looking at the “self’ in
self-worth protective strategies, the researcher proposes, that we gain a more
complex understanding of why and how students self-protect and are also able to
suggest potential interventions.
Self-Protective Strategies, Self-Esteem and Self-Efficacy
Research has been conducted about factors related to one’s perception of
self in relationship to self-worth protective strategies. Specifically, researchers have
looked at self-esteem and self-efficacy as they relate to self-handicapping
(Midgley, Arunkumar, & Urdan, 1996; Tice, 1991) and defensive pessimism
(Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001; Norem & Cantor, 1986). Self-esteem is a global,
affective evaluation of oneself (e.g., an individual may feel bad about oneself
because he does not have many friends) (Harter as cited in Pintrich & Schunk,
2002). Self-efficacy, on the other hand, is defined as “people’s judgments of their
capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated
types of performances” (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Thus, while self-esteem is a global
assessment, self-efficacy refers to an assessment of one’s capability with regard to
a specific task.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
Generally, research about the relationship between self-handicapping and
self-esteem has focused on the self-presentational rather than the self-protective
aspect. That is, researchers (Covington, 1992) argue that students who engage in
self-handicapping are primarily motivated by appearing worthy and able to others
rather than wanting to believe in their own minds that they are worthy and able.
From this perspective, it appears that people high and low in self-esteem both
engage in self-handicapping, but for different reasons (Tice, 1991). People high in
self-esteem appear to use self-handicapping strategies in order to enhance their
image by appearing to succeed despite minimal preparation while people with low
self-esteem may use the same strategies in order to protect their image when they
perceive that there is a likelihood of failure (Midgley, Arunkumar, & Urdan, 1996).
It is not clear who are more prone to use self-handicapping: students with high or
low self-esteem. It may be that students high in self-esteem have more to lose than
those low in self-esteem. Since failure may be a greater blow for them than for
students with low self-esteem, they may self-handicap in order to offset the
implications of this failure on their self-worth. On the other hand, it may be that
students low in self-esteem aim to protect themselves from a continually low self
esteem, stemming from a likelihood of frequent contemplation of failure
(Baumeister, Tice, & Hutton, 1989). Along this line of thinking, Midgley,
Arunkumar and Urdan (1996) hypothesized that children who are low in self
esteem may be especially concerned about appearing able to others and thus may
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
be more prone to use self-handicapping strategies than those high in self-esteem.
Another line of work, on the other hand, has found that self-handicapping is
relatively independent of self-esteem (Rhodewalt & Hill, 1995). Further, there are
studies (Midgley, Arunkumar, & Urdan, 1996; Owens, 1994) that support looking
at self-esteem as two separate constructs of negative self-esteem (self-depreciation)
and positive self-esteem. In summary, findings about the relationship between self-
handicapping and self-esteem have been inconsistent and unclear.
Findings about the relationship between self-esteem and defensive
pessimism have also been inconsistent. Norem and Cantor (1986sa) found that
defensive pessimists were significantly lower in self-esteem than were optimists.
However, in looking at defensive expectations and reflectivity as distinct strategies,
Martin, Marsh and Debus (2001) found that, controlling for factors such as
uncertain personal control, external (versus internal) attributional orientation and
performance (versus mastery) orientation, self-esteem was a positive predictor of
reflectivity, persistence and future academic plans but had no significant
relationship with self-handicapping and defensive expectations.
Self-efficacy, in comparison to self-esteem, has been studied less in the
context of self-protective strategies. This is likely due to self-esteem as an affective,
global assessment of self being seen as a closer construct to self-worth than the
cognitive, task-specific construct of self-efficacy (Rhodewalt & Hill, 1995).
Midgley and Urdan (1995), in a regression using self-perceptions to predict self-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
handicapping, found that self-worth and self-consciousness were significant
positive predictors after controlling for gender and achievement, but that self-
efficacy was not. Martin and Brawley (2002), on the other hand, in a study about
physical achievement settings, found that self-efficacy explained significant
variance in self-handicapping over and above the variance explained by measures
of self-esteem. Similarly to self-esteem, where people both high and low in self
esteem used the same strategy of self-handicapping, but for different reasons,
Ryska (2002) found that both runners with high and runners with low self-efficacy
exhibited self-handicapping but that the impact of the strategy was largely a
function of one’s level of self-efficacy. Specifically, among runners with low self-
efficacy, self-handicapping predicted faster running times whereas among runners
with high self-efficacy, the positive impact of self-handicapping was not as evident.
Since there have been few studies about self-efficacy in the context of self-
protective strategies and these studies have produced inconsistent findings,
conclusions about the relationship between self-protective strategies and self-
efficacy are difficult to make.
Although studies have looked at self-esteem and self-efficacy in
relationship to self-protective strategies, they do not allow insight into the specific
cognitive images, expressed in the students’ own words, that motivate the behavior
of self-handicapping, on one hand, or expecting or reflecting about failure, on the
other hand. Although, clearly, motivated behavior does depend on one’s level of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
self-efficacy, “the element that is psychologically experienced and that is a durable
aspect of consciousness is a possible self’ (p. 217, Markus & Ruvolo, 1989). By
focusing on possible selves, Markus and Ruvolo believe that one can get
phenomenologically close to the actual thoughts and feelings that individuals
experience. In essence, possible selves allow us to give a face to the fears that
motivate the students’ self-protective behaviors.
Integrating Self-Worth Motivation Theory, Need Achievement Theory and Self-
Worth Protective Strategies
As mentioned previously, Covington and Omelich (1991) integrated self-
worth theory with Atkinson’s (1957) original quadripolar model. Martin, Marsh
and Debus (1999) took it further by integrating self-handicapping, defensive
expectations and reflectivity into the quadripolar model. They found that defensive
expectations and self-handicapping reflected failure avoidance (high avoidance/low
approach), with self-handicapping bordering on failure acceptance (low
avoidance/low approach), while reflectivity was aligned with overstiving (high
avoidance/high approach).
It is likely that Elliot and Church (2003) did not find a relationship between
need for achievement and defensive pessimism as they did not differentiate
between defensive expectations and reflectivity in their study. The current study
suggests that with defensive pessimism assessed as two distinct strategies of
defensive expectations and reflectivity, both need for achievement along with fear
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
of failure, measured similarly to Elliot and Church’s instrumentation, will be
predictive of reflectivity.
Integrating Self-Worth Protective Strategies and Possible Selves
As previously stated, self-worth protective strategies are likely to be
activated when negative self-schemas dominate the working self-concept (Garcia &
Pintrich, 1994). Although studies have looked at the relationship between self
esteem and self-protection (Midgley, Arunkumar, & Urdan, 1996; Martin, Marsh,
& Debus, 2001; Tice, 1991), the hypothesized link between self-concept,
specifically, and self-worth protective strategies, has not been established. Possible
selves as one element of self-concept are particularly appropriate for studying the
anticipatory self-protective strategies as they, too, are anticipatory in nature. That
is, possible selves reflect the individuals’ future images of themselves, which are
based on, but distinct from, the past and current selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986).
Both self-handicapping and defensive pessimism are underpinned by a fear
of failure which is partly hypothesized to have originated from early childhood
experiences (Atkinson, 1957). Possible selves, though, reflect more than
developmental influences. They also reflect the socio-historical context and more
recent personal experiences, such as repeated failure in the academic domain. In
circumstances of repeated low performance, the working self-concept in academic
situations is likely to be dominated by feared selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986). This
researcher proposes that due to the presence of these negative possible selves, self-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
protective strategies such as self-handicapping, may be activated for students with a
dominant fear of failure.
Possible selves may also enable us to gain a more complex understanding of
defensive pessimism with its components of defensive expectations and
reflectivity. Specifically, the current study proposes that since reflectivity is
associated with good academic performance (Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001,
2003), this fact is likely to enable the activation of positive expected or hoped for
possible selves in evaluative situations. It has, however, also been clearly
established that defensive pessimism as a whole is also motivated by a fear of
failure (Elliot & Church, 2003; Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 1999), resulting in feared
possible selves. This combination of academic success in the presence of the
underlying fear of failure may translate into a balance between positive and
negative possible selves in the same domain for reflective students. Therefore,
although reflective students are characterized by the presence of high anxiety due to
the anticipation of failure, under the conditions of balanced possible selves, this
anxiety may actually enhance performance rather than be detrimental to it, similarly
to Markus and Ruvolo’s (1989) suggestion.
In the case of defensive expectations, Martin, Marsh and Debus (2001)
found that although defensive expectations negatively predicted self-regulation and
persistence, they were not related to lower grades at the end of the year. Based on
these results, it is not clear whether evaluative situations activate only negative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
selves for defensively expectant students or whether positive possible selves may
also be present. Since defensive expectations refer to explicit expectations of low
performance or failure, this study cautiously proposes that although students with
such expectations may endorse positive possible selves, the balance between these
and feared selves in evaluative situations is not nearly the same as that for reflective
students.
Based on the above discussion, two individuals may feel an equally strong
fear of failure, yet the dynamics of action that follow as a result of this fear largely
depend on the particular possible selves that are activated in an individual’s self-
concept (Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987; Markus & Nurius, 1986). From this theoretical
perspective, possible selves may function as moderators between the achievement
motive and self-worth protective strategies. Additionally, however, the researcher
suggests that possible selves act as a mechanism through which the underlying
achievement motives influence self-worth strategy choice. This suggestion is based
on the theoretical framework advanced by Garcia and Pintrich (1994). Since
variables that act as the causal mechanism between the predictor and the outcome
are referred to as mediators (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Holmbeck, 1997), the present
study will focus on whether and how possible selves mediate the relationship
between the motivational and cognitive components.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
Conclusions
Research in self-worth protective strategies has yielded a rich literature base
that has identified several widely accepted similarities and differences between the
strategies of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism, their predictors and
outcomes. The literature review, however, also pointed out that there is a lack of
clarity about the conceptualization of the strategies and consequently, many
research findings are contradictory. The review also pointed out that there are no
studies that look at a bridge between the underlying motivation and cognitive
strategy choice and specifically, that there is a lack of understanding of “self’ in
self-worth protective strategies.
The researcher identified possible selves as appropriate for a study about the
relationship between the underlying motives of fear of failure and need for
achievement and self-worth protection. The researcher suggests that possible selves
as specific future-oriented images of self may provide for a better and more
complex understanding of self-worth protection than solely looking at the
underlying achievement motive or considering a global measure, such as self
esteem. This study proposes that possible selves partially mediate the relationship
between motivational and cognitive components.
Possible Contributions
Several possible contributions emerge from the findings of the current
study. First, the findings of the current study hold implications in the context of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
intervention. As previously discussed, the researcher proposes that one of the
differences between students who self-handicap, have defensive expectations or are
reflective is the presence of positive possible selves in evaluative situations. Based
on the fact that fear of failure and need for achievement appear to be relatively
stable traits (Atkinson, 1957; Elliot & Thrash, 2002), but that possible selves are
malleable (Markus & Nurius, 1986), the suggested intervention involves the
enhancement of positive possible selves for students who engage in self-protection.
When positive expected or hoped for selves are activated, students may see how
self-handicapping deters them from actualizing their hopes.
Another important contribution of the current study is the emphasis on
studying defensive pessimism from the perspective of its two components:
defensive expectations and reflectivity. As discussed, the two strategies may be
based on a different motivational foundation, manifested in significantly different
possible selves and therefore yield different behavioral outcomes. A more complex
understanding will enable stakeholders, such as educators, parents, and therapists,
better help students who self-protect. For example, reflective students may benefit
from a continued emphasis on the approach motivation and the resulting positive
possible selves as a way of disenabling their failure avoidance and feared selves
from becoming dominant and leading to the adoption of detrimental self-protective
strategies.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the study was to gain a deeper understanding of why and
how students self-protect by assessing the relationship between self-worth
protective strategies, the underlying achievement motives and self-concept. Based
on this relationship, another purpose of the study was to further differentiate
between the self-worth protective strategies of self-handicapping, defensive
expectations and reflectivity. This chapter includes the research questions and a
description of the research design. The latter includes the sampling procedure and
population, instrumentation, and procedures for data collection and analysis.
Research Questions
1. Do possible selves partially mediate the relationship between achievement
motivation and self-worth protective strategies?
2. What are the differences in the possible selves generated by students who
self-handicap, have defensive expectations or are reflective?
3. What is the relationship between reflectivity and a need for achievement?
Research Design
The research design was quantitative, driven by the nature of the research
questions. Specifically, non-experimental techniques were used to assess the
relationship between the independent and dependent variables. The independent
variables in the current study were 1) the achievement motives, fear of failure and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
need for achievement, and 2) possible selves, measured by feared, hoped for and
balanced possible selves, both academic and general. The independent variables
also included the students’ community college placement exam scores and
demographic variables, specifically their age, gender and ethnicity. The dependent
variables were the different types of self-worth protective strategies, namely 1) self-
handicapping, 2) defensive expectations, and 3) reflectivity. All data, except for the
demographic variables and the placement exam scores, were gathered via a pencil
and paper survey. The community college database provided the demographic
variables and placement exam scores for the students who agreed to avail this
information. These data provided the necessary information to answer the research
questions.
Population and Sample
The population of interest was students at one Southern California
community college. The sample contains 280 students, all of whom were enrolled
in either the introductory psychology course, PSYCH 101, or the introductory
sociology course, SOC 101. These courses were chosen as they are part of the
general requirement of the college and therefore students in these courses would
not represent a select group but rather reflect the general student body. Twenty-four
surveys were excluded due to the students being minors. Among the 256 surveys
entered into analysis, there were 85 (33.2%) male and 159 (62.1%) female
participants. Of the total sample, 131 (51.2%) students were White, 49 (19.1%)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
Latino, 13 (5.1%) multiracial, 11 (4.3%) African American, 10 (3.9%) Filipino, 6
(2.3%) Asian and 1 (.4%) American Indian.
The English placement scores’ range was 39.0 to 116.4. Any students who
scored lower than 104.5 were categorized as remedial-level and any students who
scored above that score as college-level in the college database. The majority of the
study’s participants (n = 175, 68.4%) placed at the remedial level of the English
test with 56 (21.9%) placing at the college level. The participants ranged in age
from 16 to 52, with the mean age of the participants being 20.83 (SD = 5.564).
Specifically, 68% of the participants were between 18 and 20 years old.
Instrumentation
Fear of failure, self-handicapping, defensive expectations and reflectivity
were all rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).
Need for achievement was assessed on a true or false scale. The following are
specifics about the measures.
Fear of Failure, the avoidance motivation, was assessed using Elliot and
Thrash’s (2002) short version of fear of failure measure derived from Herman
(1990). In their original research, which was partly replicated in this study, Elliot
and Church (2003) used Houston and Kelly’s (1987) nine-item scale. However,
other studies have shown this measure to not be highly reliable (Cronbach’s alpha
<.7) (Elliot, personal communication on March 3, 2005). The Fear of Failure
measure used in this study (Elliot & Thrash, 2003) consisted of items such as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
“When I start doing poorly on a task, I feel like giving up” and “I often avoid a task
because I am afraid that I will make mistakes.” Cronbach’s alpha for the measure in
this study was .79. Appendix A presents the measure.
Need for Achievement, the approach motivation, was assessed with the
Achievement Orientation subscale of Jackson’s (1974) Personality Research Form
(PRF). The measure consists of 16 true-false items (e.g., “I enjoy difficult work”).
Jackson (1967) reported reliabilities for Need for Achievement scale of .72 to .86.
Reliability in Elliot and Church’s (2003) study for the measure was .60. Cronbach’s
alpha for the scale in this study was .52. Future studies may need to revise the
measure in order to increase its reliability. Appendix B lists the items for need for
achievement.
Self-handicapping was assessed using Strube’s (1986) shortened version of
the Self-Handicapping Scale (SHS), originally a 20-item self-report questionnaire
by Jones and Rhodewalt (1982). Strube demonstrated that the original scale
contained irrelevant items that contributed to low internal consistency (.62).
Consequently, he developed a shorter yet more internally consistent (Cronbach’s
alpha = .70) form of the scale which was used in the current study. The shortened
Self-Handicapping Scale contains ten items (Appendix C), such as “I tend to out
things off until the last moment” and “I would do a lot better if I tried harder.” In
this study, Cronbach’s alpha for the measure was .70 (.6986). Appendix C presents
the measure.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
Defensive expectations were assessed using a scale Martin, Marsh and
Debus (2001) adapted from the Defensive Pessimism Questionnaire by Norem and
Cantor (1986b) and the Life Orientation Test by Scheier, Carver and Bridges
(1994). The scale contains eight items (e.g., ”No matter how well I have done in the
past, I go into academic situations expecting to do worse” and “No matter how well
I have done in the past, I’m pessimistic about my future performances”). Martin,
Marsh and Debus found Cronbach’s alpha for the scale to be .90. In this study,
Cronbach’s alpha for the measure was .93. Appendix D lists the items for defensive
expectations.
Reflectivity was assessed using a scale that Norem (1997, 1998) devised in
a personal communication with Martin. It consists of seven statements (e.g., “I
carefully consider all possible outcomes before tests and assignments” and
“Considering what can go wrong in tests and assignments helps me to prepare”).
Appendix E represents the measure. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale in Martin’s
study was .78 and in this study, .82.
Possible selves were assessed based on a measure designed by Oyserman
and Markus (1990) and Cross and Markus (1991). As described in Appendix F,
upon a short introduction, the participants were asked to list their expected, hoped
for and feared selves for the next year. The participants were asked to list at least
three possible selves for each area (expected, hoped for and feared).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
Data Collection
The researcher obtained permission from the psychology and sociology
faculty chair at the community college to conduct surveys in the classroom. All
introductory course (PSYCH 101, SOC 101) instructors were invited to participate
in the study by their respective department heads. In the psychology department,
six instructors (46% of the total number of instructors) agreed to allow the surveys
to be conducted in their classroom, and in the sociology department, three
instructors (50% of the total) agreed.
All surveys (Appendix G) were conducted either immediately before or
immediately following the first exam with the goal of the evaluative situation
bringing the students’ hopes and fears to the foreground. The researcher personally
visited twelve sections with some instructors inviting the survey to be conducted in
more than one the sections they taught. Instructors in each classroom were asked to
leave the room in order to reduce the sense of coercion. Upon the instructor exiting,
the students were first briefly oriented to the broad aims of the study as outlined in
the information sheet (Appendix H). Specifically, students were told that the
researcher was interested in how the way in which the students see themselves in
the future affects their academic behavior. The students were not informed about
the specific issues of interest to the researcher and no terminology related to the
study was used with the exception of “possible selves” which was included as the
title of the study on the survey and the information sheet. The researcher delivered
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
the recruitment speech and distributed the information sheet which clearly outlined
that completion and return of the survey constituted consent to participate in this
research project. The students were then asked to complete the questionnaire on
their own and to submit the completed form to the box at the back of the room. On
an average, participants took 15 minutes to fill out the survey.
Data Analysis
All data were coded and prepared for statistical analysis using Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 11.0 program and Lisrel 8.5 (Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1999). Descriptive and other statistical analyses were ordered, including:
1) descriptive statistics of all variables, including the means and standard
deviations of the demographic data, 2) the correlation matrices for all variables in
order to assess relationships between variables, 3) MANOVA analyses in order to
assess the relationship between possible selves and self-protective strategies where
students were assigned a category based on their dominant self-protective strategy,
4) structural equation modeling, linear and hierarchical regression analyses in order
to assess the relationship between achievement motives, possible selves and self-
protective strategies, and 5) simple linear regression in order to assess the
relationship between need for achievement and reflectivity.
Two different coders coded 36% (n = 91) of surveys, consisting of 546
possible selves. There was agreement in the coding of 89% of the possible selves.
The researcher proceeded to code the rest of the surveys. As described in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
Possible Selves’ Coding Manual (Appendix I), the first step included coding each
possible self into one of seven categories (academic, intrapersonal, interpersonal,
physical/health, material/lifestyle, extracurricular/hobbies, and job/career-related
possible selves). Next, all positive possible selves, whether they were listed as
hopes or expectations (e.g., “transfer student to a UC school,” “switch my job to a
part-time job,” ’’ become more studious”) were coded as “hopes” and negative
possible selves, whether listed as fears or expectations (e.g., “drop-out,”
“unemployed,” “living at home”) coded as “fears.” Then, each possible self was
coded into an academic positive, academic negative or academic balanced; or
general positive, general negative or general balanced possible self category. Each
possible self could only be used once to form a pair and a pair of responses was
considered in balance if the hopes and fears represented a positive and negative
aspect of the same content area. For example, “better student by becoming more
studious” was paired with “a slacker/poor student” to form academic balanced
possible selves’ and “living on my own” was paired with “living at home” to form
general balanced possible selves.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This chapter presents the statistical outcomes for the previously presented
research questions: 1) Do possible selves mediate the relationship between
achievement motives and self-protective strategies? 2) What are the differences in
the possible selves generated by students who self-handicap, have defensive
expectations or are reflective? and 3) What is the relationship between reflectivity
and a need for achievement?
Intercorrelations and Bivariate Relationships
A summary of the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the
demographic variables (sex, age, placement exam results), achievement motives
(fear of failure and need for achievement), self-protective strategies (self-
handicapping, defensive pessimism and reflectivity) and possible selves are listed
in Table 1.
Possible selves were categorized into academic positive, negative and
balanced selves and general positive, negative and balanced selves. Among both
academic and general possible selves, positive, negative and balanced selves were
all positively correlated with each other. In essence, for both academic and general
selves, the more negative possible selves a participant had, the more positive and
balanced selves were reported as well. On the other hand, there were negative
correlations between all academic and all general possible selves. For example, a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
balance in academic possible selves was negatively correlated with a balance
between general possible selves (r = -.162, p < .01). Similarly, academic positive
selves were negatively correlated with general positive selves 0 = -.351, /? < .01)
and academic negative selves with general negative selves (r = -.207, p < .01). This
significant negative relationship existed between academic and general possible
selves, irrespective of gender or placement level, though some of the relationships
became insignificant when placement level was considered. Specifically, among
college level participants, academic and general balanced possible selves were not
correlated with each other while that relationship was significant among remedial
level participants. Similarly, among college level participants, academic and
general negative possible selves were not related while among remedial level
participants, this relationship was significant.
There were significant correlational relationships between general possible
selves and self-protective strategies while academic possible selves did not emerge
as having a significant relationship with self-worth protective strategies.
Specifically, both self-handicapping and defensive expectations were positively
correlated with a balance between general possible selves (r = .242, p < .01 and r =
.123, p < .05, respectively) indicating that those with more balance between general
possible selves were more likely to engage in these two types of self-protective
strategies. Also, those with more general negative possible selves were more likely
to self-handicap (r = .144,/? < .05). Need for achievement was negatively
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
correlated with general negative possible selves and the balance in general possible
selves (r = -.179, p < .01 and r = -.129, p < .05, respectively), indicating that those
participants with more general negative selves and more balance between general
possible selves were less likely to report a need for achievement. Self-
handicapping, defensive expectations and reflectivity as self-worth protective
strategies were all positively correlated with the fear of failure (r = .600, p < .01, r
= .624, p < .01 and r = .182, p < .01, respectively). In other words, all three self-
worth protective strategies were significantly underpinned by a fear of failure. Self-
handicapping and defensive expectations were negatively correlated with need for
achievement (r = -.404, p < .01 and r =-.297, p < .01) while reflectivity had no
relationship to need for achievement.
In looking at demographic variables, gender was positively correlated with
both fear of failure and need for achievement (r = .223, p < .01 and r = . 131, p <
.05). In other words, the results demonstrated that female participants were more
likely than males to report a fear of failure as well as a need for achievement. Age
was negatively correlated with self-handicapping (r = -.238, p < .01), indicating
that older participants used less self-handicapping strategies, and positively
correlated with need for achievement (r = .134, p < .05), indicating that older
participants exhibited a higher need for achievement.
Finally, placement scores which placed students into either college or
remedial level for English correlated negatively with fear of failure (r = -.165,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 . Sex .09 .01 .22** .13* .06 .08
2. Age 20.83 5.56 - .10 -.09 .13* -.24** -.04
3. Placement - -.17* .08 -.05 -.09
4. Fear of failure 3.28 1.03 - -.41** .60** .62**
5. Need for achievement 9.65 2.65 - -.40** -.30**
6. Self-handicapping 3.80 .89 - .57**
7. Defensive expectations 2.94 1.38 -
8. Reflectivity 4.43 1.14
9. Academic positive PS 1.14 1.01
10. Academic negative PS .78 .89
11. Academic balanced PS .57 .75
12. General positive PS 2.27 1.52
13. General negative PS 1.67 1.36
14. General balanced PS .72 .86
Note. Sex (1 = Male, 2 = Female); Age = Subject's Age; Placement (1 = Remedial, 2 = College Level); PS = Possible Selves
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Os
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1 (Continued)
Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables
Variable M SD 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1 . Sex .03 .09 .01 -.02 -.06 -.07 .02
2. Age 20.83 5.56 -.11 -.08 -.09 -.05 -.01 -.04 -.03
3. Placement -.06 -.01 .02 -.02 .11 .11 .06
4. Fear of failure 3.28 1.03 .18** .07 -.01 .06 -.06 .05 .12
5. Need for achievement 9.65 2.65 .01 .01 -.03 -.06 -.03 -.18** -.13*
6. Self-handicapping 3.80 .89
2i**
.05 .01 .00 .05 .14* .24**
7. Defensive expectations 2.94 1.38 .20** -.02 -.01 -.02 -.06 .09 .12*
8. Reflectivity 4.43 1.14 - .06 .06 .02 -.06 .05 .07
9. Academic positive PS 1.14 1.01 .62** .67** -.35**
-18**
-.26**
10. Academic negative PS .78 .89 - .85** -.25** -.21**
-18**
11. Academic balanced PS .57 .75 - -.28**
. 19**
. 16**
12. General positive PS 2.27 1.52 - .57** .54**
13. General negative PS 1.67 1.36 - .60**
14. General balanced PS .72 .86 -
Note. Sex (1 = Male, 2 = Female); Age = Subject's Age; Placement (1 = Remedial, 2 = College Level); PS = Possible Selves
*p < .05. **p < .01.
o \
to
63
p <.05), but only for female participants. That is, among female participants,
remedial level students were more likely to report fear of failure. Since placement
scores were not related to any other variables in the study, they were not entered as
a control variable in the statistical analyses.
In assessing correlational relationships, some results followed the
hypotheses and others emerged as being contrary to what was expected. As
expected, self-worth protective strategies were all positively related to a fear of
failure with self-handicapping and defensive expectations being also negatively
related to need for achievement. Contrary to expectations, reflectivity did not have
a positive relationship with need for achievement but rather displayed no
relationship. The researcher expected that academic possible selves would have a
relationship with self-worth protective strategies, but instead, general possible
selves emerged as having that relationship. As expected, negative possible selves
were related to self-handicapping, indicating that it is the strategy most dominated
by fear of failure. The relationship between balanced general selves to self-
handicapping and defensive expectations was surprising as theory suggests that a
balance between possible selves should lead to a higher level of motivation and
achievement. It is possible that the presence of negative possible selves as part of
the balance caused this unexpected positive relationship.
Chi-square analyses were conducted in order to assess relationships beyond
correlations. In looking at placement level and possible selves, no differences
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
emerged between college and remedial-level student in the reporting of any of the
different types of possible selves: academic positive (x2 = 2.72, p = .742), academic
negative (% 2 = 5.94, p = .204) or academic balanced (x2 = 4.972, p = .290), and
2 2
general positive (x = 6.54, p = .587), general negative (x = 3.81, p = .702) and
general balanced (x = 2.32, p = .677). Similarly, chi-square analyses revealed no
differences between males and females in the reporting of academic positive (x2 =
9 9
8.98, p = .534), academic negative (x = 8.35, p = .400) and academic balanced (x
= 3.68, p = .884), and general positive (x2 = 12.02, p = .743), general negative (x2 =
7.92, p = .791), and general balanced (x2 = 2.22, p = .974) possible selves.
Additionally, t-tests were conducted to determine whether there were
differences in the possible selves and self-worth protective strategies based on
ethnicity. Specifically, any differences in the reporting of possible selves and
strategies between White and Latino participants, the two largest ethnic groups in
the study, were assessed. None emerged, though differences in reflectivity were
almost significant (t (178) = -1.928, p =.055) with White students reporting slightly
higher levels of reflectivity.
Research Question 1
Do possible selves mediate the relationship between achievement motives
and self-protective strategies? Structural equation modeling was employed in order
to investigate relationships as represented in Figure 1.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
A. Direct Effects
Predictor Variables (X)_____________ ^ Outcome Variables (Y)
Fear of Failure, Need Self-Handicapping,
for Achievement Defensive Expectations
Reflectivity
B. Mediated Effects
Mediator Variables (Z)
Academic and General Positive, Negative and Balanced Selves
Predictor Variables (X)_____________ ^ Outcome Variables (Y)
Fear of Failure, Need Self-Handicapping,
for Achievement Defensive Expectations
Reflectivity
Figure 1. Mediator Model
Several indices of fit were used to ascertain the fit of the conceptual model
to the data. Using multiple indices ensures that the fit of the model is not dependent
on just a few features of the model, but looked at several different aspects of the
9 9
model. First, the classic test of goodness-of-fit, the x , was used. The x measures
the fit of the model to the current sample’s data. A good fit is indicated by a x2 with
the probability (p-value) greater than 0.05 and a x :df ratio of less than 3 (Kline,
1998). In the current study, the x2 had a probability of less than 0.05 and the x2:df
ratio of more than 2.0 (x2 = 299.64, d f= 41), indicating poor fit.
Because the x is sensitive to sample size, other indices were assessed as
well. Specifically, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
population index based on badness of fit, was assessed. Estimates of fit are based
on the error of approximation making RMSEA much less sensitive to sample size
than the % statistic. The RMSEA of a good fitting model should be close to or less
than 0.06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In the current study, the RMSEA statistic was
0.16, indicating a poor fit.
In addition, a /-value was assessed to interpret whether the correlations
between the predictor, mediator and outcome variables were significant. This was
done by dividing the standard error of the correlation coefficient by its standard
error. A r-value greater than 1.96 means that the correlation coefficient is
significant at the .05 level. The t-value of the correlation between achievement and
possible selves was 0.74 and between possible selves and self-protective strategies
-.08, both non-significant.
As a result of assessing these measures of goodness-of-fit, the researcher
decided not to proceed with structural equation modeling (SEM). Future studies,
though, may consider employing SEM by excluding some variables from
consideration and looking at different versions of the model to further investigate
the relationship between achievement motives, possible selves and self-protective
strategies.
In order to investigate achievement motives, possible selves and self-
protective strategies in relationship with each other beyond the SEM mediational
model, simple regression was conducted with achievement motives as the predictor
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
and possible selves as the outcome variable. There was a significant relationship
between need for achievement and general negative possible selves ((3 = -.192, p <
.01), indicating that those participants with a higher need for achievement endorsed
less negative selves. Fear of failure was not related to possible selves.
Next, hierarchical regression was performed. The goal of hierarchical
regression was to determine whether possible selves predicted variance above and
beyond achievement motives (fear of failure and need for achievement) in
explaining self-protective strategies. In this analysis, fear of failure and need for
achievement were entered as the first step and all academic and general possible
selves entered as the second step. The results of hierarchical regression are
presented in Table 2. At the first step, fear of failure and need for achievement
explained 39% of variance in self-handicapping (F = 78.341, df = 2, 243, p = .000).
When possible selves were entered next, they significantly explained an additional
3.8% of variance in self-handicapping (F Change = 2.656, df = 6, 237, p = .016)
with the entire model being significant (F = 22.379, df = 8, 237, p = .000). In
analyzing the coefficients, results showed that those participants with a higher
balance between academic positive and negative possible selves self-handicapped
less (P = -.213, p = .034) and those participants with a higher balance between
general positive and negative selves self-handicapped more (P = .176, p = .008).
This finding is consistent with academic and general balanced possible selves
having an inverse relationship with each other (r = -.162, p c.Ol). In predicting
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
defensive expectations and reflectivity, possible selves did not add variance above
and beyond achievement motives.
Hierarchical regression demonstrated that there was a relationship between
possible selves and self-worth protection when considering achievement
motivation, but the nature of that relationship was not clear. Since SEM had
previously shown that a mediating relationship was not likely, the possibility of a
moderational relationship was assessed.
A moderation analysis via regression equations was conducted to assess
whether a moderational effect existed between achievement motives, balanced
possible selves and self-protective strategies. Balanced possible selves were chosen
as the potential moderator based on Oyserman and Markus’ (1998) theory that a
balance between hopes and fears is more motivating that hopes or fears by
themselves. While a mediator is a variable that acts in a causal chain between the
predictor and the outcome variable, a moderator is a variable that alters the
direction or strength of the relation between a predictor and an outcome (Baron &
Kenny, 1986). A moderator effect, thus, is an interaction whereby the effect of one
variable depends on the level of another. In essence, the goal for the moderational
analysis was to assess whether possible selves affected the nature of the
relationship between achievement motives and self-protective strategies. Figure 2
represents the hypothesized relationships.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
A Direct Effects
Predictor Variables (X)
Fear of Failure, Need
for Achievement
^ Outcome Variables (Y)
Self-Handicapping,
Defensive Expectations
Reflectivity
B. Moderator Effects
Predictor Variables (X)
Fear of Failure, Need
for Achievement
^ Outcome Variables (Y)
Self-Handicapping,
Defensive Expectations
Reflectivity
Moderator Variables (Z)
Balanced Possible Selves (Academic and General)
Figure 2. Moderator Model
In order to test a moderational relationship, the predictor and moderator
variables had to be standardized. This was done since the predictor and the outcome
variables are generally highly correlated with the interaction terms created from
them (Barron, Tix, & Kenny, 2004). Standardizing reduces the problem of
multicollinearity among the variables in the regression equations. After
standardizing the predictor and moderator variables, the next step was to create
product terms from the standardized variables that represented the interaction
between the predictor and the moderator. After this, all data was ready to be entered
into a hierarchical multiple regression equation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Self-Protective Strategies from Achievement Motives and Possible Selves
Step and variable
Self-handicapping Defensive pessimism Reflectivity
R2 B SEB
P
R2 B SEB
P
R2 B SEB
P
Step 1
39***
.04**
Fear of failure .46 .05
4^***
.81 .08 .25 .08 .22**
Need for achievement -.07 .02
-19**
-.03 .03 -.05 .04 .03 .10
Step 2 .43* .41 .07
Fear of failure .45 .05
52***
.81 .08
60***
.23 .08 .20**
Need for achievement -.06 .02
_ 19**
-.02 .03 -.04 .05 .03 .11
Academic negative PS .16 .09 .16 .29 .15 .18 .16 .15 .12
Academic positive PS .09 .06 .10 -.10 .10 -.07 .05 .10 .05
Academic balanced PS -.25 .12 -.21* -.31 .19 -.17 -.19 .19 -.12
General negative PS -.02 .04 -.02 .08 .07 .09 .07 .07 .09
General positive PS .02 .04 .03 -.12 .06 -.12 -.13 .07 -.17*
General balanced PS .18 .07 .18** .06 .12 .04 .13 .11 .10
Note: PS = possible selves
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
-4
O
71
Table 3 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analyses. In
predicting reflectivity, the relationship between general balanced possible selves
and fear of failure emerged as significant (F Change = 3.912, df = 1, 252, p = .049).
The interaction term between fear of failure and general balanced possible selves
accounted for an additional 1.5% of variance in explaining reflectivity.
Standardized beta weights are reported in the table at their respective points of
entry (i.e., Step 1 or Step 2). In plotting the significant interaction effect,
unstandardized beta weights were used since in equations that include interaction
terms, the p coefficients for the interaction terms are not properly standardized and
the results are not interpretable (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). As demonstrated in
Figure 3, for all participants with a balance between selves, as their fear of failure
increased, so did the strategy of reflectivity. However, those participants with the
highest balance among possible selves used reflectivity to a significantly higher
degree than those with a lower balance in possible selves. In essence, balanced
possible selves changed the strength of the relationship between fear of failure and
reflectivity, in effect moderating it.
In summary, contrary to expectations, possible selves did not emerge as a
partial mediator between achievement motives and self-worth protective strategies.
However, regression analysis showed that they added variance above and beyond
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
Fear of Failure X General Balanced Possible Selves Interaction
s— »
o >
S
■
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■■■■■■I
■ j -
I :;;:- .;! 1 « r :
J.UU -
4.75 -
■ini'“HlftiiniK|W "': ■ • * * ! ■ ; ■ rt V .: 1 ■ s h ? • > . = : i f\ jh * i-i
■ M H
4.50 -
low med high
General Balanced Selves
♦ high 5.42 5.87 6.32
-*-m ed 5.13 5.46 5.78
-•-lo w 4.85 5.04 5.24
Fear of Failure
Figure 3. Plot of significant Fear of Failure X General Balanced Possible
Selves interaction.
achievement motives in explaining self-worth protective strategies. As expected, a
balance between academic positive and negative selves was related to less self-
handicapping. Further, balanced possible selves acted as a moderator between fear
of failure and reflectivity. Thus, the researcher’s hypothesis that possible selves act
as the cognitive link between underlying motivation and behavior was partially
supported.
Research Question 2
What are the differences in the possible selves generated by students who
self-handicap, have defensive expectations or are reflective? A MANOVA was
conducted in order to answer this question. There were no significant differences
that emerged in the composition of possible selves between self-protective
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3
Hierarchical Regression Analyses Testing for Moderator Effects Between Achievement Motives, Balanced Academic and General Possible Selves and
Self-Worth Protective Strategies__________________________________________________________________________________
Self-handicapping Defensive pessimism Reflectivity
Step and variable R2 B SEB
P
R2 B SEB
P
R2 B SEB B
Step 1
Aca Bal PS (z )
.36**
-.03 .05 -.04
39***
-.08 .07 -.06
.03*
.01 .07 .01
Fear of failure (FF) (z ) .54 .05 .60*** .87 .07 .63*** .21 .07
18**
Step 2 .36 .39 .03
Aca Bal PS X FF .04 .05 .04 -.03 .07 -.03 -.02 .08 -.02
Step 1
39*** 39***
.035**
Gen Bal PS (z ) .15 .04
17**
.07 .07 .05 .05 .07 .05
Fear of failure (FF) (z ) .52 .04 .58*** .86 .07 .62*** .20 .07 .18**
Step 2 .39 .39 .05*
Gen Bal PS X FF .06 .05 .07 .06 .07 .04 .14 .07 .13*
Note: Aca Bal PS = academic balanced possible selves; Gen Bal PS = general balanced possible selves, z = z-score
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
74
strategies (Wilks’ Lambda = .981, p = .776). The relationship remained non
significant irrespective of placement level and gender. However, correlational data
pointed to the differences between the three strategies. Specifically, although self-
handicapping was related to negative (r = .149, p <.05) and balanced (r =.242, p
<.01) general selves and defensive expectations to balanced general selves (r =
.123,/? <.01), there was no relationship between possible selves and reflectivity.
Research Question 3
What is the relationship between need for achievement and reflectivity? The
purpose of this research question was to further differentiate among self-
handicapping, defensive expectations and reflectivity based on these strategies’
relationship to the approach motive, need for achievement. In order to assess this
relationship, simple linear regression was conducted with need for achievement as
the independent and reflectivity as the dependent variable. Contrary to the
expectation, need for achievement failed to predict reflectivity (P= .009, p = .891).
Correlational relationships, however, pointed to the differentiation between the
three self-protective strategies in the context of achievement motivation.
Specifically, need for achievement was not related to reflectivity while it had a
significant negative relationship with both self-handicapping and defensive
expectations (r = -.404, p < .01 and r = -.297, p < .01, respectively), demonstrating
that participants with less need for achievement reported using these two self-
protective strategies rather than reflectivity. Further, self-handicapping and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
defensive expectations shared 32% of variance (r = .567, p < .01) while in
comparison, self-handicapping only shared 4.5% of variance with reflectivity (r =
.213, p < .01) and defensive expectations shared 4% of variance with reflectivity (r
= .202, p < .01). There were further differences between self-handicapping,
defensive expectations and reflectivity when gender was considered. Among male
participants, reflectivity was related neither to fear of failure (r = .203, p = .062)
nor to need for achievement (r = -.087, p = .437) and had no relationship to self-
handicapping (r - .189, p = .084). Overall, the results further distinguished between
the three self-worth protective strategies.
Summary
In summary, the current study showed that possible selves explained which
self-worth protective strategy students used above and beyond the underlying
achievement motives of fear of failure and need for achievement. While they did
not emerge as a partial mediator between the motives and strategy choice, possible
selves moderated that relationship. Contrary to expectations, there were no
significant differences between the possible selves endorsed by students who used
different self-protective strategies based on multiple analysis of variance
(MANOVA). However, at the correlational level, self-handicapping had a
relationship with feared and balanced possible selves and defensive expectations
with balanced possible selves while reflectivity had none. Contrary to expectations,
need for achievement did not positively predict reflectivity in the regression
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
analysis. Correlational relationships, on the other hand, pointed to the differences
between the three self-protective strategies with self-handicapping and defensive
expectations being positively related to avoidance motivation and negatively
related to approach motivation and reflectivity only having a positive relationship
with avoidance motivation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The current study sought to further explore self in self-worth protection as a
way to deeper understand why and how students self-protect. Specifically, the
study offered insights into the relationship between achievement motivation (as
represented by fear of failure and need for achievement), possible selves and self-
protective strategies among community college students. The results indicated that
possible selves explained self-worth protective strategy use above and beyond
achievement motives and moderated the relationship between motives and self-
worth protective behavior, thus partly supporting the hypotheses that they function
as the cognitive link between the underlying motivation and the consequent
behavior. At the correlational level, there were differences between the possible
selves endorsed by students who used different self-protective strategies with self-
handicapping having a relationship with feared possible selves while reflectivity
had none, supporting the hypothesis that self-handicapping is more fear-dominated
than reflectivity. Correlational relationships also pointed to the differences between
the three self-protective strategies with self-handicapping and defensive
expectations being positively related to avoidance motivation and negatively
related to approach motivation and reflectivity only having a positive relationship
with avoidance motivation. This finding again supports the notion that reflectivity
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
is less fear-dominated than the strategies of self-handicapping and defensive
expectations.
In this section, insights gained into the possible selves of community
college students will be discussed first, followed by insights into self-worth
protective strategies based on achievement motives and possible selves, and lastly,
into the relationship between achievement motives, possible selves and self-worth
protective strategies.
Possible Selves o f Community College Students
Possible selves as a construct emerged in 1986 with Markus and Nurius’
research. This study was the first to look at possible selves in the community
college population. An unexpected finding about possible selves of community
college students was the negative relationship between academic and general
possible selves. Although variables not tested in the study may have contributed to
this inverse correlational relationship, the finding could be hypothesized to suggest
that participants were able to endorse primarily either general or academic possible
selves. In essence, it appears that the more academic possible selves a student had,
the less general selves they were likely to have. For example, those students who
primarily endorsed academic hopes (e.g., “become a straight A student,” “less
procrastination when assignments are assigned,” “never be late to classes”) or fears
(e.g., “scared to try classes,” “not getting into the university I applied to,” “college
drop out”) were less likely to also endorse general possible selves. Conversely, if a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
student reported general selves such as being a working individual (e.g., “get a full
time job,” “promotion at work,” “get hired as an EMT”) or engaged with family-
related commitments (e.g., “good mother,” “a better parent to my three children,”
“family man”), they were less likely to see themselves as a student. This
relationship was especially pronounced among remedial level students while
among college level students, there was no relationship between general and
academic possible selves. Since several studies (Hock, Deshler, & Schumaker,
2003; Leondari, Singollitou, & Kisseoglou, 1998; Lips, 1995; Oyserman, Bybee,
Terry, & Hart-Johnson, 2004) have shown that students with academically oriented
possible selves achieve better in school, it may be important to ensure that the
community college setting assists students with the educational goal of transferring
to a four-year college in developing strong academic possible selves.
Within a category of possible selves (academic positive, negative and
balanced or general positive, negative and balanced), there were no differences
based on achievement level. In other words, remedial and college level students
reported equal numbers of possible selves in each category. This finding suggests
that fears related to academic achievement are likely to be present irrespective of
achievement differences and educators have to be aware of students grappling with
academic fears and engaging in self-worth protection at all levels.
Markus and Nurius’ (1986) theorized that the unconscious motives such as
fear of failure and need for achievement have a cognitive manifestation in possible
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
selves. The current study found some support for this hypothesis as a higher need
for achievement was related to less negative possible selves. The finding that fear
of failure did not emerge as related to possible selves was surprising but may be
encouraging. Specifically, fear of failure, as measured by the current study, is
conceptualized to be a relatively stable trait, reflecting developmental influences
(Atkinson, 1957; Elliot & Thrash, 2002). The finding that possible selves were not
related to fear of failure supports the conceptualization of possible selves as a
malleable aspect of one’s personality (Markus & Wurf, 1987) and based on many
factors in addition to childhood influences (such as peer influence, role models,
media images, etc.). If possible selves are malleable and if, as seen from the current
student, a balance between negative and positive possible selves leads to a decrease
in the most detrimental self-protective strategy, self-handicapping, and to an
increase in the least detrimental strategy, reflectivity, then it may be possible,
through the enhancement of possible selves, to help students who deal with their
fears by self-handicapping to shift away to less detrimental ways of protecting their
self-worth. This study’s findings also distinguish possible selves as an independent
construct and not merely another way of measuring fear of failure or need for
achievement.
Self-Worth Protective Strategies
Many researchers (Elliot & Church, 2003; Garcia & Pintrich, 1994) have
advanced a unifying framework that looks at self-handicapping and defensive
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
pessimism as self-worth protective strategies. There are fewer studies that look at
how the two strategies differ. Of specific concern for this study was the
differentiation that has emerged between defensive expectations and reflectivity as
two independent components of defensive pessimism (Martin, Marsh, & Debus,
2001, 2003). In many current studies (Elliot & Church, 2003; Norem &
Illingworth, 2004; Tomaya, 2005), defensive pessimism is viewed as a combined
strategy of defensive expectations and reflectivity while other researchers (Martin,
Marsh, & Debus, 2001, 2003) suggest looking at the two as distinct constructs.
With the goal of differentiating between the three strategies, the current
study sought to replicate and advance the findings of Elliot and Church (2003).
Elliot and Church established that self-handicapping and defensive pessimism had
similar motivational profiles with the main difference being that self-handicapping
represented the absence of approach motivation as well as the presence of
avoidance motivation while defensive pessimism as a whole represented the
presence of avoidance motivation but no relationship to approach motivation. The
correlational data in the current study, in contrast, showed that both self-
handicapping and defensive expectations as an aspect of defensive pessimism
represented the presence of avoidance motivation (fear of failure) and an absence of
approach motivation (need for achievement) while reflectivity, the other component
usually conceptualized as a part of defensive pessimism, represented avoidance
motivation only. This finding points to the similarities between self-handicapping
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
and defensive expectations, but shows that reflectivity has a different motivational
profile. It appears from the findings that self-handicapping and defensive
pessimism are the true self-worth protective strategies as they are not only rooted in
the fear of failure but also represent the absence of a need for achievement while
reflectivity is underpinned by avoidance motivation to a much lesser degree and
does not represent an absence of approach motivation. The relationship of
reflectivity to approach motivation is unclear and deserves more study. In
conducting further studies, a more reliable measure of need for achievement may
need to be employed.
It may be that students who have high avoidance motivation in combination
with negative approach motivation (i.e., students who self-handicap or have
defensive expectations) expect failure to occur while students who have avoidance
motivation but whose relationship with approach motivation is less clear (i.e.,
reflective students) can reflect about, rather than expect, failure. As Sherman, Skov,
Hervitz and Stock (1981) found, individuals who think about failure and actually
expect to fail perform significantly poorer than those who reflect about the
possibility of failure but do not expect it. In support of this hypothesis, Martin,
Marsh and Debus (2001) found reflectivity to be predictive of higher self
regulation and higher grades while self-handicapping and defensive expectations
both predicted lower self-regulation with self-handicapping also leading to poor
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
achievement. The relationship between defensive expectations and achievement
was less clear.
Additional differences between the three strategies in the context of
achievement motivation emerged when gender was considered. Among male
participants, reflectivity was related neither to avoidance motivation nor to
approach motivation. Further, among males, reflectivity had no relationship with
self-handicapping and shared only 6% of variance with defensive expectations. The
results may be interpreted as showing reflectivity as a cognitive, problem-solving
strategy where the male participants simply considered all possible outcomes rather
than a strategy that was driven by their fear of failure. Future studies may look into
the potential differences between males and females when it comes to reflectivity in
more depth. It may be that women and men approach situations where failure and
success are both possible differently with women tapping more into their fear of
failure. Based on this distinction and the ones outlined above, the current study
supports Martin, Marsh and Debus’ (2001) suggestion of dealing with the two
constructs, reflectivity and defensive expectations, as separate constructs in future
research rather than joining them under the umbrella of defensive pessimism.
Possible Selves, Achievement Motivation and Self-Worth Protection
When students have a fear of failure, they will likely try to avoid these fears
from becoming a reality with some students resorting to self-worth protective
strategies (Covington, 1992). The current study proposed that this is also the case
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
when students endorse feared possible selves. Students may self-protect by actively
shifting the cause of potential failure away from lack of ability to lack of effort or
illness (by self-handicapping), by lowering their expectations (by having defensive
expectations) or by simply thinking through the possibility of negative outcomes
(by being reflective). This study sought to further explore why and how students
self-protect by re-addressing the relationship between achievement motives and
self-protection and by introducing possible selves to the discussion. The study
provided valuable insights into the relationship between the three constructs.
Most importantly, the study found that when academic fears were balanced
with hopes, students still self-protected due to the dominant fear of failure, but the
presence of positive academic selves enabled them to shift away from self-
handicapping, a strategy that expects and effectively creates lower achievement
(Urdan, 2004), towards a less detrimental way of protecting their self-worth.
Oyserman and Markus (1998) hypothesized that when a positive possible self is
available to counter a negative one, the negative possible self and the associated
anxiety can actually have beneficial effects on performance. This hypothesis was
supported by the finding that possible selves moderated the relationship between
fear of failure and reflectivity such that the higher the balance between hopes and
fears, the higher the reflectivity. As reflectivity has been found to be positively
predictive of self-regulation and higher grades at the end of the school year (Martin,
Marsh, & Debus, 2001), future studies could compare the achievement of reflective
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
students and strategic optimists (students for whom fear of failure is not an issue).
The results may be found to confirm the hypothesis that a balance between hopes
and fears, resulting in reflectivity, is more motivating and translates into academic
success moreso than the presence of hopes alone.
Contrary to expectations, academic possible selves did not have a
relationship with self-worth protective strategies at the correlational level but there
was a relationship between general possible selves and self-worth protective
strategies. In discussing this finding, it is important to consider the population of
the current study. Most of the participants were entry- and remedial-level students
at a community college with 68% of participants being between 18 and 20 years
old. Many community colleges differ from the four-year universities in that while
the majority of students report obtaining an associate degree and transferring to a
four-year institution as their goal, there is an equally significant portion of students
who are undecided about their educational goals and many indicate updating their
job skills as their goal (Just the Facts, 2004). As the only relationships between
possible selves and self-worth protective strategies existed among general possible
selves, it is possible that a significant portion of the participants interpreted the self-
worth protective measures as general, rather than academic. This may be since the
study’s participants had not yet developed strong academic possible selves
(reflective of freshmen students who were unclear about their educational goals)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
but on the other hand, it may reflect the fact that community college students in this
study did not see themselves primarily as students, but rather had vocational goals.
The study had several limitations. Most importantly, much of the data was
gathered through self-report which rendered the study vulnerable to social
desirability effects. Of the self-reported data, the measure for need for achievement
demonstrated low reliability which may have compromised the quality of the study.
Future studies will need to re-assess whether the Achievement Orientation subscale
of Jackson’s (1974) Personality Research Form (PRF) is an effective and current
way to measure approach motivation.
The possible selves’ measure used in this study is also possibly problematic.
The primary benefit of employing an open-ended possible selves’ measure is that
the researcher can gain an individualized profile of the participants rather than
categorizing them based on pre-determined possible selves through closed-ended
measures. The main concern associated with measuring possible selves through an
open-ended format relate to the nature of self-concept being “the working self-
concept” (Markus & Nurius, 1986, p. 957). In open-ended formats, subtle
contextual cues may contaminate findings. Thus, there may be problems with
reliability. Additionally, the possible selves’ component of the survey started by
asking the participants to list their hoped for selves, followed by expectations and
fears. Because of this type of priming, order effects of the possible selves’ measure
may have had a confounding effect on the study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
As correlational data, the data presented in this study imply a connection
between achievement motives, possible selves and self-protective strategies but
cannot be interpreted as showing that differences in the content and structure of
possible selves cause differences in self-worth protection.
The results of the study are delimited to one Southern California community
college students and may not be representative of the larger body of community
college students and higher education institution students in general. The study
primarily included subjects of White and Latino background which means that the
results may not apply across other ethnic groups.
Recommendations
Several recommendations for action by key stakeholders and for future
research stem from the current study. Although much research has been conducted
about self-worth protective strategies and their potentially harmful effects of
performance and subjective well-being, very little research has suggested ways to
help students deal with their underlying fear of failure (Covington, 1998). The
reason for this lack of research may lie in fear of failure, the foremost predictor of
self-worth protection, being seen as a trait that is resistant to change (Elliot &
Thrash, 2002). The introduction of possible selves into understanding why students
self-protect provides educators with a malleable construct that has the potential to
moderate the relationship between fear of failure and self-worth protection.
(Naturally, the causality of the relationship would need to be established first.) By
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
providing programs that help balance the students’ fears with hopes, educators may
be able to help them deal with their fear of failure in a reflective, rather than
failure-expectant manner.
It is important for educators to realize that fear of failure, feared possible
selves and consequently, self-worth protection are likely to occur irrespective of
one’s level of achievement. Ranging from a student dealing with high anxiety on a
consistent basis or actually failing as a result of engaging in self-worth protection,
the cost for the student can be high.
There are a number of recommendations for future research as a result of
this study. Most importantly, an experimental study that could explore the causal
links between possible selves and self-worth protection longitudinally. Specifically,
the study could assess whether changing the participants’ possible selves would
result in them changing how they self-protect. Additionally, adding a longitudinal
perspective to the current study would be interesting. Since the study looked at
mostly first-semester community college students whose achievement level was
only measured by the entrance placement exam, it would be interesting to assess
whether those with academically focused possible selves achieved higher year-end
grade point averages than those whose possible selves were primarily general in
nature. It would be also important to assess whether more students endorsed
academically oriented possible selves as a result of their first year at a community
college.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
In terms of understanding the impact of possible selves on motivation, it
will be important to add a measure of the strength of a possible self. For example, a
measure could assess how confident the participant is that the feared self will
become a reality. This measure would help further distinguish between expecting
an outcome and reflecting about an outcome which appears to be a crucial
distinction between the strategies of self-protection and the resulting performance
patterns.
Lastly, the study contributed to the conceptualization of defensive
expectations and reflectivity as independent strategies with different motivational
profiles as well as manifestations in possible selves. It therefore is very likely that
the three strategies have different outcomes with students who self-handicap being
most at risk for failure and students who are reflective least at risk. As the current
study showed, it is possible that self-handicappers and defensively expectant
students are quite similar in their motivational profile with a pronounced
relationship to fear of failure and a lack of need for achievement while reflectivity
is less dominated by a fear of failure and has a qualified relationship to need for
achievement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
References
Aloise-Young, P. A., Hennigan, K. M., & Leong, C. W. (2001). Possible selves and
negative health behaviors during early adolescence. Journal o f Early
Adolescence, 21(2), 158-181.
Atkinson, J.W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior.
Psychological Review, 64(6), 359-372.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: D. Van
Nostrand.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations o f thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-
efficacy. In G.-H. Jennings (Ed.), Passages beyond the gate: A Jungian
approach to understanding the nature o f American psychology at the dawn
o f the new millennium (pp. 96-107). Needham Heights, MA: Simon &
Schuster Custom Publishing.
Baron,. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-
1182.
Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Hutton, D. G. (1989). Self-presentational
motivations and personality differences in self-esteem. Journal of
Personality, 57, 547-579.
Beery, R.G. (1975). Fear of failure in the student experience. Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 54, 191-203.
Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in
response to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 36, 405-417.
Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and
expanding goal theory. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 84(3), 272-281.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
Borkowski, J. G., & Thorpe, P. K. (1994). Self-regulation and motivation: A life
span perspective on underachievement. In D. H. Schunk & B. J.Zimmerman
(Eds.), Self-regulation o f learning and performance: Issues and educational
applications (pp. 45-73). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1987). Personality and social intelligence.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Covington, M. V. (1984). The motive for self-worth. In R. Ames & C. Ames
(Eds.), Research on motivation in education (pp. 77-113). Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on
motivation and school reform. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Covington, M. V. (1997). A motivational analysis of academic life in college. In R.
P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education:
Research and practice. New York: Agathon Press.
Covington, M. V. (1998). The will to learn: A guide fo r motivating young people.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Covington, M. V., & Beery, R. G. (1976). Self-worth and school learning. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1991). Need achievement revisited:
Verification of Atkinson’s original 2X2 model. In C. D. Spielberger, I. G.
Sarason, Z. Kulcsar & G. L. Van Heck (Eds.), Stress and emotion (Volume
14). New York, NY: Hemisphere.
Covington, M., & Roberts, B. W. (1994). Self-worth and college achievement:
Motivational and personality correlates. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown & C.
E. Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation, cognition, and learning: Essays in
honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie (pp. 157-187). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cross, S., & Markus, H. (1991). Possible selves across the life span. Human
Development, 34, 230-255.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (2003). A motivational analysis of defensive
pessimism and self-handicapping. Journal o f Personality, 71(3), 369-396.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in
personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 804-818.
Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis o f personality. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator
effects in counseling psychology research. Journal o f Counseling
Psychology, 57(1), 115-134.
Garcia, T., Matula, J. S., Harris, C. L., Egan-Dowdy, K., Lissi, M. R., & Davila, C.
(1995). Worriers and procrastinators: Differences in motivation, cognitive
engagement, and achievement between defensive pessimists and self-
handicappers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Fransisco, CA.
✓
Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the
classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D. H.
S chunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation o f learning and
performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 127-153). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Herman, W. E. (1990). Fear of failure as a distinctive personality trait measure of
test anxiety. Journal o f Research and Development in Education, 23, ISO-
185.
Hock, M. F., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2003). Enhancing student
motivation through the pursuit o f possible selves. Manuscript in preparation.
University of Kansas.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity
in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical
and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 65, 599-610.
Houston, B. K., & Kelly, K. E. (1987). Type A behavior in housewives: Relation to
work, marital adjustment, stress, tension, health, fear-of-failure and self
esteem. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 37(1), 55-61.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling, (5(1), 1-55.
Jackson, D. N. (1967). Personality research form manual. New York, NY:
Research Psychologists Press.
Jackson, D. N. (1974). Manual fo r the personality research form. Goshen,
NY: Research Psychologists Press.
Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through
self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of
underachievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 200-206.
Jones, E. E., & Rhodewalt, F. (1982). The self-handicapping scale. Princeton
University.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1999). LISREL (Version 8.5) [Computer
Software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kelley, H. H. (1972). Causal schemata and the attribution process. Morristown,
NJ: General Learning Press.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice o f structural equation modeling. New
York: Guildford Press.
Leondari, A., Singollitou, E., & Kisseoglou, G. (1998). Academic achievement,
motivation and possible selves. Journal o f Adolescence, 21, 219-222.
Lips, H. (1995). Through the lens of mathematical/scientific self-schemas: Images
of students’ current and possible selves. Journal o f Applied Social
Psychology, 25, 1671-1699.
Markus, H., & Kunda, Z. (1986). Stability and malleability of the self-concept.
Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 858-866.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-
969.
Markus, H., & Ruvolo, A. (1989). Possible selves: Personalized representations of
goals. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social
psychology (pp. 211-241). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social-psychological
perspective. Annual Review o f Psychology, 38, 299-337.
Martin, K. A., & Brawley, L. R. (2002). Self-handicapping in physical achievement
settings: The contribution of self-esteem and self-efficacy. Self and Identity,
7(4), 337-351.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (1999). A quadripolar need
achievement representation of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism.
American Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 583-610.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001). Self-handicapping and
defensive pessimism: Exploring a model of predictors and outcomes from a
self-protection perspective. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 93(1), 87-
102.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicapping and
defensive pessimism: A model of self-protection from a longitudinal
perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 1-36.
McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American
Psychologist, 20, 321-333.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953).
The achievement motive. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.
Midgley, C., Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). “If I don’t do well
tomorrow, there’s a reason”: Predictors of adolescents’ use of academic
self-handicapping strategies. Journal o f Educational Psychology, 88, 423-
434.
Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1995). Predictors of middle school students’ use of self-
handicapping strategies. Journal o f Early Adolescence, 15, 389-411.
Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Norem, J. (2001). Defensive pessimism, optimism, and pessimism. In E. C. Chang
(Ed.), Optimism and pessimism: Implications fo r research, theory and
practice (pp. 77-100). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
Norem, J., & Cantor, N. (1986a). Anticipatory and post hoc cushioning strategies:
Optimism and defensive pessimism in “risky” situations. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 10, 347-362.
Norem, J., & Cantor, N. (1986b). Defensive pessimism: Harnessing anxiety as
motivation. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1208-1217.
Norem, J., & Cantor, N. (1990). Cognitive strategies, coping and perceptions of
competence. In R. J. Sternberg & J. J. Kolligian (Eds.), Competence
considered (pp. 190-204). New Haven, CT: Yale University.
Norem, J., & Illingworth, K. S. (1993). Strategy-dependent effects of reflecting on
self and tasks: Some implications of optimism and pessimism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 822-835.
Norem, J., & Illingworth, K. S. (2004). Mood and performance among defensive
pessimists and strategic optimists. Journal o f Research in Personality,
35(4), 351-366.
Owens, T. J. (1994). Two dimensions of self-esteem: Reciprocal effects of
positive self-worth and self-depreciation on adolescent problems. American
Sociological Review, 59, 391-407.
Oyserman, D. (2001). Self-concept and identity. In A. Tesser & N. Schwarz
(Eds.), Blackwell Handbook o f Social Psychology (pp. 499-517). Malden,
MA: Blackwell Press.
Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., Terry, K., & Hart-Johnson, T. (2004). Possible selves as
roadmaps. Journal o f Research in Personality, 38, 130-149.
Oyserman, D., & Fryberg, S. (2005). The possible selves of diverse adolescents:
Content and function across gender, race and national origin. Manuscript to
appear in C. Dunkel & J. Kerpelman (Eds.), Possible selves: Theory,
research, and application. Huntington, NY: Nova.
Oyserman, D., Gant, L., & Ager, J. (1995). A socially contextualized model of
African American identity: school persistence and possible selves. Journal
o f Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1216-1232.
Oyserman, D., & Markus, H. (1990). Possible selves and delinquency. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 112-125.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
Oyserman, D. & Markus, H. (1998). Self as social representation. In U. Flick (Ed.),
The psychology of the social (pp. 107-125). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Oyserman, D., & Saltz, E. (1993). Competence, delinquency, and attempts to attain
possible selves. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 360-374.
Oyserman, D., Terry, K., & Bybee, D. (2002). A possible selves intervention
to enhance school involvement. Journal o f Adolescence, 25, 313-326.
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1994). Self-regulated learning in college students:
Knowledge, strategies, and motivation. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown & C.
E. Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation, cognition, and learning: Essays in
honor o f Wilbert J. McKeachie (pp. 113-133). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). (Eds.) Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications (2n d ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Rhodewalt, F., & Davidson, J. (1986). Self-handicapping and subsequent
performance: Role of outcome valance and attributional certainty. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 7, 307-322.
Rhodewalt, F., & Hill, S. K. (1995). Self-handicapping in the classroom:
The effects of claimed self-handicaps on responses to academic failure.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 397-416.
Sanna, L. (1996). Defensive pessimism, optimism, and simulating alternatives:
Some ups and downs of prefactual and counterfactual thinking. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1020-1036.
Santa Clarita Community College District (August, 2004). Just the facts: Fact book
fo r College o f the Canyons. Santa Clarita, CA.
Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: Reactions
to tests. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 929-938.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. N. (1994). Distinguishing optimism
from neuroticism and test anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem: A
reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal o f Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 1063-1078.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
Sherman, S. J., Skov, R.B., Hervitz, E. F., & Stock, C. B. (1981). The effects of
explaining hypothetical future events: From possibility to probability to
actuality and beyond. Journal o f Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 142-
158.
Showers, C. (1988). The effects of how and why thinking on perceptions of future
negative events. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 12, 225-240.
Snyder, C. (1990). Self-handicapping processes and sequelae: On the taking
of a psychological dive. In R. Higgins (Ed.), Self-handicapping: The
paradox that isn’t (pp. 107-150). New York: Plenum.
Snyder, C. R. (1994). The psychology o f hope: You can get therefrom here.
New York: Free Press of New York City.
Spencer, S., & Norem, J. (1996). Reflection and distraction: Defensive pessimism,
strategic optimism, and performance. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 22, 354-365.
Strube, M. J. (1986). An analysis of the Self-Handicapping Scale. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 7, 211-224.
Tice, D. M. (1991). Esteem protection or enhancement? Self-handicapping motives
and attributions differ by trait self-esteem. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60(5), 711-725.
Tomaya, M. (2005). Influence of cognitive strategies on test coping strategies and
academic achievement: Defensive pessimism and strategic optimism.
Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 53(2), 220-229.
Urdan, T. (2004). Predictors of self-handicapping and achievement: Examining
achievement goals, classroom goal structures, and culture. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96(2), 251-264.
Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping: What we know and
what more there is to learn. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 115-138.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective.
In M. Boekarts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook o f self
regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
Appendix A
Fear of Failure (Herman, 1990)
1. When I start doing poorly on a task, I feel like giving up.
2. If given a choice, I have a tendency to select a relatively easy task rather
than risk failure.
3. When I fail at a task, I am even more certain that I lack the ability to
perform the task.
4. I often find that I am well prepared for success on a task, but I do not perform
the task well under pressure.
5. I tend to put forth a great deal of effort into a task, but I often know that this
effort is of poor quality.
6. Sometimes I think it is better not to have tried at all, then to have tried and
failed.
7. When I am tackling a challenging task, I find that I am reminded of my previous
failures.
8. I often avoid a task because I am afraid that I will make mistakes.
9. I find that I can learn to perform a task very well, but I crack under the pressure
of the situation and often do not perform anywhere close to my potential.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
Appendix B
Need for Achievement (Jackson, 1974)
1. People should be more involved in their work. T F
2. I seldom set standards which are difficult for me to reach. T F
3. I enjoy difficult work. T F
4. I will not be satisfied until I am the best in my field of work. T F
5. I have rarely done extra studying in connection with my work. T F
6. I try to work just hard enough to get by. T F
7. I do not let work get in the way of what I really want to do. T F
8. I would work just as hard whether or not I had to earn a living. T F
9. My goal is to do at least a little bit more than
anyone else has done before. T F
10. In my work I seldom do more than is necessary. T F
11.1 often set goals that are difficult to reach. T F
12. People seldom think of me as a hard worker. T F
13. It doesn’t really matter to me whether I become
one of the best in my field. T F
14. As a child, I worked a long time for some of the things I earned. T F
15.1 don’t mind working while other people are having fun. T F
16.1 am not really very certain what I want to do or how to go about it. T F
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
Appendix C
Self-Handicapping Scale (Strube, 1986)
1. I tend to make excuses when I do something wrong.
2. I tend to put things off until the last moment.
3. I suppose I feel “under the weather” more often than most people.
4. I always try to do my best, no matter what.
5. I am easily distracted by noises or my own daydreaming when I try to read.
6. I try not to get too intensely involved in competitive activities so it won’t
hurt too much if I lose or do poorly.
7. I would do a lot better if I tried harder.
8. I sometimes enjoy being mildly ill for a day or two.
9. I tend to rationalize when I don’t live up to others’ expectations.
1 0.1 overindulge in food and drink more often than I should.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
Appendix D
Defensive Expectations (Martin, Marsh & Debus, 2001)
1. No matter how well I have done in the past, I do into academic situations
expecting to do worse.
2. No matter how well I have done in the past, I often expect that I will do
more poorly in the future.
3. No matter how well I have done in the past, I generally have negative
expectations about how I will do in the future.
4. No matter how well I have done in the past, I often expect that in upcoming
tests or assignments I won’t be able to do what is required of me.
5. No matter how well I have done in the past, in upcoming tests or
assignments, I think if something can go wrong for me, it will.
6. No matter how well I have done in the past, I’m pessimistic about my future
performances.
7. No matter how well I have done in the past, I hardly ever expect things to
go my way in the future.
8. No matter how well I have done in the past, I rarely expect good things to
go my way.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
Appendix E
Reflectivity (Norem, personal communication with Martin, December 12, 1996)
1. I carefully consider all possible outcomes before tests and assignments.
2. I often think about how I will feel if I do very poorly in tests and
assignments.
3. I often think about how I will feel if I do very well in tests and
assignments.
4. I often try to figure out how likely it is that I will do very poorly in tests and
assignments.
5. I spend a lot of time thinking through possible outcomes when a test or
assignment is coming up.
6. I often try to figure out how likely it is that I will do very well is tests and
assignments.
7. Considering what can go wrong in tests and assignments helps me to
prepare.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
Appendix F
Possible Selves Questionnaire
(Cross & Markus, 1991; Oyserman & Markus, 1990)
Probably everyone thinks about the future to some extent. When doing so, we
usually think about the kinds of experiences that are in store for us and the kinds of
people we might possibly become. Sometimes we think about what we probably
will be like, other times about the ways we are afraid we might turn out to be, and
other times about what we hope or wish we could be like.
1. Please list below the things that you most hope you will become in the next year.
2. Please list below the things that you are most likely to become in the next year.
3. Please list below the things that you most fear that you will become in the next
year.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
Appendix G
Survey
Possible Selves and Academic Behavior
Dear Student
Your input is very valuable to this study. When responding to the following survey items, please think
about your experience as a student. When you are finished, please turn in your surveys and signed
consent form in the box provided at the back of the room.
Provide your Student ID# (including all zeros): Student ID # :__________________
0 Please indicate if you are under 18 years of aae bv filling in the circle to the left.
Below is a list of questions about you as a student. Please use a soft lead pencil or broad-tipped black pen
to fill in the answer bubbles F ill in the circle that best describes your opinion using the following rating scale:
1 =Strongly disagree, 4 = Neither agree nor disagree, and 7 =Strongly agree
For each answer, please fill in marks like this: 0 not like thi)^f 0 @
Use pencil or dark ink.
For each of the following statements, check the number on the 7-point scale that best describes how that
statement applies to you. As you are answering, think about yourself as a student and consider your academic
tasks and assignments. There are no right and wrong answers. No one other than the principal investigator w ill
see your answers. Instructors will not have access to the information you provide on this survey and your
answers will not influence the grade you receive in this course.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. When I start doing poorly on a task, I feel like giving ip.
O 0 ; ■ 0 0 0 0 o
2. I f given a choice, I have a tendency to select a relatively
easy task rather than risk failure.
O 0 O 0 O 0 0
3. When I fail at a task, I am even more certain that I lack
the ability to perform the task.
o 0 o o o Q o
4. I often find that I am well prepared for success on a task,
but I do not perform the task well under pressure.
o O o o o O o
5. I tend to put forth a great deal of effort into a task, but I
often know that this effort is of poor quality;
o o
:C
o
6. Sometimes I think it is better not to have tried at all than
to have tried and failed.
o o o o o o o
7. When I am tackling a challenging task, I find that I am
reminded of my previous failures.
o 0 V , 0 o 0
8. I often avoid a task because I am afraid that I w ill make
mistakes.
o o o o o o o
9. I find that I can learn to perform a task very well, but I
crack under pressure of the situation and often do not
perform anvwhere close to mv potential.
o o o o o 0 o
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
1 . I tend to make excuses when I do something wrong.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. I tend to put things off until the last moment.
0 o 0 0 0 0 0
3. I suppose I feel “under the weather” more often than
most people.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4. I always try my best, no matter what.
0 0 '::0' 0 0 0 0
5. I am easily distracted by noises or by my own
daydreaming when I try to read.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. I try not to get too intensely involved in competitive
activities so it won’ t hurt as much if I lose or do poorly.
0 0 : ; § ■ J ; 0 0 0
7. I would do a lot better if I tried harder.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8. I someti mes enjoy being mildly ill for a day or two.
,..Q . 0 0 0 i d ;i: 0 0
9. I tend to rationalize when I don’ t live up to others’
expectations.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 .1 overindulge in food and drink more often than I should.
0
’ ■0'
0 0 0
1 1 . No matter how well I have done in the past, I go into
academic situations expecting to do worse.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12. No matter how well I have done in the past, I often
ertrect that I will do more poorly in the future.
0 0 0 0 0
13. No matter how well I have done in the past, I generally
have negative expectations about how I w ill do in the
future.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 No matter how well I have done in the past, I often
expect that in upcoming tests or assignments, I won’ t be
able to do what is reauired of me.
% ■ i # :
o : l 0
15. No matter how well I have done in the past, in upcoming
tests and assignments, I think if something can go
vwong, it w ill.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16. No matter how well I have done in the past, I ’m
pessimistic about my future performances.
o 0 0 0 0 0 0
17. No matter how well I have done in the past, I hardly ever
expect things to go my way in the future.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18. No matter how well I have done in the past, I rarely
expect good things to go my way.
M a 0 0
nl:#::;'
0 0
1 9 .1 carefully consider all possible outcomes before tests
and assignments.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 .1 often think about how I w ill feel if I do very poorly on
tests and assignments.
0 ;:§} 0 0 0 0 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
1. I often think about how I w ill feel if I do very well on tests
and assignments.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. I often try to figure out how likely it is that I w ill do very
poorly in tests and assignments.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. I spend a lot of time thinking through possible outcomes
when a test or assignment is coming up.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4. I often try to figure out how likely it is that I wll do very
well in tests and assignments.
: :'W 0 0 0 0
5. Considering what can go wrong in tests and
assignments helps me to prepare.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Please answer whether the following statem ents are generally true or false of you. As you are
answering, think about yourself as a student and consider your academic ta ste and assignments as
your “work.”
T rue False
1. People should be more involved with their work.
0 0
2. I seldom set standards which are difficult for me to reach.
0 0
3. I enjoy difficult work.
0 0
4. I w ill not be satisfied until I am the best in my future field of work.
0 0
5. I have rarely done extra studying in connection wth my work.
0 0
6. I try to work just hard enough to get by.
0 0
7, I do not let work get in the way of what I really want to do.
0 0
8. In the future, I would work just as hard whether or not I had to earn a living.
0 0
9. My goal is to do at least a little bit more than anyone else has done before.
6 0
10. In my work I seldom do more than is necessary.
0 0
11.1 often set goals that are difficult to reach.
0
12. People seldom think of me as a hard worker.
0 0
13. It doesn't really matter to me whether in the future, I become one of the best in my field.
''G:; 0
14. As a child, I worked a long time for some of the things I earned.
0 0
1 5 .1 don’ t mind working while other people are having fun.
0 0
1 6 .1 am not really very certain what I want to do or howto go about it.
0 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
The following open-ended prompts look at the hopes, expectations and fears that you have. Please
answer the prompts honestly and list as many items as you wish, but please be sure to give no fewer
than three items for each question. Your answers will be held in strict confidence and no one other
than the principal researcher will se e your answers.
Probably everyone thinks about the future to som e extent. When doing so, we usually think about the
kinds of experiences that are in store for us and the kinds of people we might possibly become.
Sometimes we think about what we probably will be like, other times about the ways we are afraid we
might turn out to be, and other times about what we hope or wish we could be like.
1. Please list below the things that you most hope you will become in the next year.
2. Please list below the things that you are most likely to become in the next year.
3. Please list below the things that you most fear that you will become in the next year.
Thank you for you r tim e and attention to this im portant survey.
Please place your completed survey and signed consent form in the box
located at the back of the room.
I f you have any questions regarding the statements and/or content of this survey, please contact
Helena Seli at 213-740-2087 or via em ail at praks@usc.edu.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
Appendix H
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall 600 C
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4036
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
__________ M W ---------------------------------------- W M B M H M .M ------------------------
“Self’ in self-worth protection: The relationship of possible selves
to achievement motives and self-protective strategies
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Helena Seli,
(Principal Investigator), M.S.Ed., a doctoral degree candidate, and Myron H.
Dembo, Ph.D., faculty advisor, from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California because you are a student at the College of the
Canyons Community College. The results of this study will contribute to Helena
Seli’s dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study
because you are enrolled in PSYCH 101 or SOCIOLOGY 101. A total of between
400-500 subjects will be selected to participate. Your participation is voluntary.
You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do
not understand, before deciding whether or not to participate.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to understand how the way you see yourself in the
future affects your academic expectations and behavior.
Completion and return of the survey will constitute consent to participate in
this research project.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:
Complete a 53-item survey in class which will take about 25 minutes to complete.
The survey will ask you questions about how you approach learning in your classes
as well as where you see yourself in the next year. For example, a sample survey
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
item asks you to rate your opinion on a scale of 1 to 7 of the following statement:
“No matter how well I have done in the past, I generally have negative expectations
about how I will do in the future.” Another item on the survey asks you to rate
your opinion on a scale of 1 to 7 about the following statement: “I tend to put
things off until the last moment.” In addition, there will be a few open-ended
prompts, such as: “Probably everyone thinks about the future to some extent. When
doing so, we usually think about the kinds of experiences that are in store for us
and the kinds of people we might possibly become. Sometimes we think about
what we probably will be like, other times about the ways we are afraid we might
turn out to be, and other times about what we hope or wish we could be like. Please
list below the things that you most hope you will be like or become in the next
year.”
This study will also be looking at your placement exam scores and demographic
data (i.e., age, gender and ethnicity), the obtaining of which requires your
permission. The data and your College of the Canyon’s ID number will only be
viewed by the principal investigator administering this study. Responses will be
held in the strictest professional confidence. Instructors will not have access to the
information you provide on this survey and your answers will not influence the
grade you receive in this course.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
This study does not pose any identifiable risks beyond minor discomfort. You may
be uncomfortable due to the time taken away from regular class instruction, from
your demographic information and placement scores being reviewed, or the
concern with the confidentiality of your answers on the survey. If you feel
discomfort, you may choose not to participate, stop or withdraw from the study at
any time. You may also choose not to answer any questions that make you
uncomfortable.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
There will be no direct benefit to you for participating in this study. However, the
information from this study will be used to help inform decisions and improve
services for students.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
No information is being collected that can be linked back to you, thereby your
privacy will be ensured. The data will be stored for three years in a locked file
cabinet of the principal investigator after the completion of the study (after the
dissertation has been defended), at which time the information will be destroyed.
Course instructors will not have access to the information you provide on this
survey and your answers will not influence the grade you receive in this course.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
the Principal Investigator, Helena Seli, via mail at WPH 600A, Los Angeles, CA
90089-4036; email at praks@usc.edu; or phone at (213) 740-3465. You may also
contact the Faculty Advisor, Dr. Myron H. Dembo, via mail at WPH 600C, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-4036; email at dembo@usc.edu; or phone at (213) 740-2364.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-
1695, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ill
Appendix I
Possible Selves Coding Manual
Step 1:
Please categorize all data into the following categories:
Refers to school, courses,
Academic achievement
Interpersonal relationships
Intrapersonal/personality
traits
Physical/health
Material/lifestyle
Extracurricular/hobbies
Job-related (refers to job or
career-related)
studying behavior
Refers to relationships, being
a parent
Refers to personal
characteristics
Refers to illnesses, gaining
and losing weight, pregnancy,
death
Refers to moving out of
parents, being rich, having
enough money to pay for
school
Refers to athletics, singing,
any hobby where it is not
clear that the person is getting
paid (has a job)
Refers to a specific job at the
moment or long-term career-
related issues such as
determining which field to go
into
Comments:
o A possible self can only be assigned one category.
o Each possible self needs to be assigned a category - whether it is duplicated or
not. For example, some students list their hopes and duplicate them as
expectations. Please be sure to code the expectations again.
Step 2:
Determine if there are hopes, expectations, fears that cancel each other out. Cross these
out for ease of counting and balancing.
Balancing out hopes, fears Hope: An A student
and expectations: Expectation : An A-B student - that is the same thing - not
significantly different - cancel each other out
Hope: W ould like to become a manager at work
Expectation: Will be promoted at work - cancel each other out -
both refer to becoming a manager
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
Step 3:
Count and record the following on the survey itself:
Academic hopes AH General hopes GH
Academic fears AF General fears GF
Step 4:
Determine if there is a balance between AHs and AFs and GHs and GFs.
Each possible self can only be used once to form a pair. Possible selves can be considered
to form a balanced pair if the positive and negative self refer to the same area/skill. For
example, “a passing psychology student” is a balanced with “a failing college student.”
On the other hand, “A fulltime college student” would not be a pair for “a passing
psychology student.”
Record the numbers of pairs.
Academic balanced pairs AH+- General balanced pairs GH+-
Step5
Please enter your findings about AH+. AH-, AH+- and GH+, GH-, GH+- into the
database (Possible Selves quantitative).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Exploration of the relationships between child and family characteristics, pre -adoptive risk history, and adoption services utilization

PDF

Comparing the motivational profiles of high -ability-low -performing (HALP) students and high -ability -high -performing (HAHP) students

PDF

Intra-familial child sexual abuse: The experience and effects on non-offending mothers

PDF

Coordinating the reading and writing competencies during the early literacy development of 5--6 year -old Spanish -English emergent bilinguals

PDF

A descriptive study of teacher beliefs about classroom motivation: A goal orientation theory perspective

PDF

A cross -cultural comparison of achievement motivation among college students in South Africa

PDF

An evaluation study of gifted programs in two Jewish day schools

PDF

Does first-year treatment intensity predict outcome in young autistic children receiving Lovaas' ABA intervention?

PDF

Change beliefs and academic outcomes: A construct validation

PDF

Data -driven strategies to improve student achievement: A cross-case study of four California schools

PDF

Impact of Proposition 227 on bilingual teachers' beliefs and practices

PDF

Examining the relationship between writing self -efficacy, writing performance and general achievement for third graders

PDF

The Relationship Of Child-Rearing Practices To The Acquisition Of Moral Judgments In Ten-Year-Old Boys

PDF

Course completion and older adult students: The effects of self-efficacy, self -regulation, and motivation

PDF

Self-Efficacy And Learning Strategy Use In A Computer-Based Instructional Setting

PDF

Access factors and homerun experiences: Making readers of our children

PDF

Faculty characteristics: What are their relationships with academic outcomes of community college students?

PDF

The Effect Of Group Discussion On Teachers' Attitudes Towards Risk-Taking In Educational Situations: An Investigation Of The Risky Shift Phenomenon

PDF

Inaccuracies in expert self -report: Errors in the description of strategies for designing psychology experiments

PDF

Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and neuronal sprouting

Asset Metadata

Creator Seli, Helena (author)

Core Title "Self" in self -worth protection: The relationship of possible selves to achievement motives and self -worth protective strategies

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, community college,education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Dembo, Myron (committee chair), Mor Barak, Michalle (committee member), Rueda, Robert (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-432024

Unique identifier UC11341131

Identifier 3233834.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-432024 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3233834.pdf

Dmrecord 432024

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Seli, Helena

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA