1

Dealing With Threats to The Self: Part One

2

What is a Self-Threat?

““when favorable views about oneself are when favorable views about oneself are questioned, contradicted, impugned, questioned, contradicted, impugned, mocked, challenged, or otherwise put in mocked, challenged, or otherwise put in jeopardy” (Baumeister et al., 1996).jeopardy” (Baumeister et al., 1996).

3

How do people maintain favorable self-views?1. Self-Serving Bias- tendency to take credit 1. Self-Serving Bias- tendency to take credit

for success (self-enhancement) and deny for success (self-enhancement) and deny responsibility for failure (self-protection).responsibility for failure (self-protection).

4

Self-Serving Bias

Miller & Ross (1975) review article:Miller & Ross (1975) review article: Teacher-Student ParadigmTeacher-Student Paradigm

Student:Student: Time 1Time 1 Time 2Time 2

AA lowlow lowlow

BB lowlow highhigh

CC highhigh lowlow

DD highhigh highhigh

5

Self-Serving Bias

Miller & Ross review article:Miller & Ross review article: Achievement TasksAchievement Tasks

Effect of success vs. failure on Effect of success vs. failure on attributions.attributions.

6

Self-Serving Bias

Miller & Ross review article:Miller & Ross review article: ConclusionsConclusions

Research supports self-enhancement, but Research supports self-enhancement, but not self-protection.not self-protection.

Self-enhancement can be explained in Self-enhancement can be explained in non-motivational terms:non-motivational terms:Covariation b/w effort and successCovariation b/w effort and successSuccess is the expected outcomeSuccess is the expected outcome

7

Self-Serving Bias

Evidence for a motivational explanation:Evidence for a motivational explanation: Miller (1976)—ego involvementMiller (1976)—ego involvement Campbell & Sedikides (1999)– Meta-analysis of Campbell & Sedikides (1999)– Meta-analysis of

moderators of SSB.moderators of SSB. High SEHigh SE High achievement motivationHigh achievement motivation High expectationsHigh expectations Moderately challenging tasks vs. unchallengingModerately challenging tasks vs. unchallenging Competitive settingsCompetitive settings Positive moodPositive mood……all lead to greater SSB!all lead to greater SSB!

8

2. Self-Handicapping

Undermining performanceUndermining performance so that one has a so that one has a handy excuse for failure (self-protection) or handy excuse for failure (self-protection) or a boost to self-esteem (self-enhancement) in a boost to self-esteem (self-enhancement) in the event of success.the event of success.

9

Types of Self-Handicapping

Behavioral- person Behavioral- person actually createsactually creates impediments to performance.impediments to performance.

Claimed- person Claimed- person claimsclaims impediments to impediments to performance.performance.

10

Berglas & Jones’ Study

Cover story: study of drugs and intellectual Cover story: study of drugs and intellectual performance.performance.

Contingent Success Condition: intellectual test Contingent Success Condition: intellectual test was tailored so that all p’s performed well.was tailored so that all p’s performed well.

Non-contingent Success Condition: intellectual Non-contingent Success Condition: intellectual test contained mostly unsolvable items, but p’s test contained mostly unsolvable items, but p’s were told they did well.were told they did well.

11

Choice of Drug

Actavil facilitates intellectual performance.Actavil facilitates intellectual performance.

Pandocrin inhibits intellectual performance.Pandocrin inhibits intellectual performance.

10mg 7.5mg 5mg 2.5mg 0 2.5mg 5mg 7.5mg 10mg10mg 7.5mg 5mg 2.5mg 0 2.5mg 5mg 7.5mg 10mg

Actavil Actavil Actavil PandocrinActavil Pandocrin PandocrinPandocrin

12

Results

Contingent Contingent successsuccess

Non-contingent Non-contingent successsuccess

MalesMales 13%13% 70%70%

FemalesFemales 26%26% 40%40%

13

Gender Differences in Self-Handicapping Males are more likely to self-handicap, but Males are more likely to self-handicap, but

only on measures of behavioral self-only on measures of behavioral self-handicapping.handicapping.

Why?Why?Women may be less threatened by failure or Women may be less threatened by failure or

they may experience the same amount of they may experience the same amount of threat, but choose to deal with it differently threat, but choose to deal with it differently (Hirt et al., 2000).(Hirt et al., 2000).

14

Self-Esteem Differences in S-H

Tice (1991)Tice (1991) Self-enhancement condition: test can clearly Self-enhancement condition: test can clearly

identify high ability, but not low ability.identify high ability, but not low ability. Self-protection condition: test can clearly Self-protection condition: test can clearly

identify low ability, but not high ability.identify low ability, but not high ability. Also, test framed as important or Also, test framed as important or

unimportant. unimportant. DV: amount of time practicing before test.DV: amount of time practicing before test.

15

Self-Esteem Differences in S-H

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Low SE High SE

EnhancementProtection

16

Consequences of Self-Handicapping Rhodewalt et al. (1991) found that self-Rhodewalt et al. (1991) found that self-

handicapping leads to better mood and self-handicapping leads to better mood and self-esteem following failure.esteem following failure.

Zuckerman et al. (1998) show that there are Zuckerman et al. (1998) show that there are costs in the long run.costs in the long run.

17

Zuckerman et al. (1998)

Study 1:Study 1: Students completed questionnaires at Students completed questionnaires at

beginning and end of semester.beginning and end of semester. Higher SH predicts lower GPA.Higher SH predicts lower GPA.

18

Zuckerman et al. (1998)

Study 2:Study 2: Replicated Study 1Replicated Study 1 Found cyclical relationship between SE and Found cyclical relationship between SE and

SH.SH. Also cyclical relationship between negative Also cyclical relationship between negative

affect and SH.affect and SH.