1. 1 Dealing With Threats to The Self: Part One

2. 2 What is a Self-Threat? “when favorable views about oneself are questioned, contradicted, impugned, mocked, challenged, or otherwise put in jeopardy” (Baumeister et al., 1996). “when favorable views about oneself are questioned, contradicted, impugned, mocked, challenged, or otherwise put in jeopardy” (Baumeister et al., 1996).

3. 3 How do people maintain favorable self-views? 1. Self-Serving Bias- tendency to take credit for success (self-enhancement) and deny responsibility for failure (self-protection).

4. 4 Self-Serving Bias Miller & Ross (1975) review article: Teacher-Student Paradigm Teacher-Student Paradigm Student: Time 1 Time 2 Alowlow Blowhigh Chighlow Dhighhigh

5. 5 Self-Serving Bias Miller & Ross review article: Achievement Tasks Achievement Tasks  Effect of success vs. failure on attributions.

6. 6 Self-Serving Bias Miller & Ross review article: Conclusions Conclusions  Research supports self-enhancement, but not self-protection.  Self-enhancement can be explained in non-motivational terms:  Covariation b/w effort and success  Success is the expected outcome

7. 7 Self-Serving Bias Evidence for a motivational explanation: Miller (1976)—ego involvement Miller (1976)—ego involvement Campbell & Sedikides (1999)– Meta-analysis of moderators of SSB. Campbell & Sedikides (1999)– Meta-analysis of moderators of SSB.  High SE  High achievement motivation  High expectations  Moderately challenging tasks vs. unchallenging  Competitive settings  Positive mood …all lead to greater SSB!

8. 8 2. Self-Handicapping Undermining performance so that one has a handy excuse for failure (self-protection) or a boost to self-esteem (self-enhancement) in the event of success. Undermining performance so that one has a handy excuse for failure (self-protection) or a boost to self-esteem (self-enhancement) in the event of success.

9. 9 Types of Self-Handicapping Behavioral- person actually creates impediments to performance. Behavioral- person actually creates impediments to performance. Claimed- person claims impediments to performance. Claimed- person claims impediments to performance.

10. 10 Berglas & Jones’ Study Cover story: study of drugs and intellectual performance. Cover story: study of drugs and intellectual performance. Contingent Success Condition: intellectual test was tailored so that all p’s performed well. Contingent Success Condition: intellectual test was tailored so that all p’s performed well. Non-contingent Success Condition: intellectual test contained mostly unsolvable items, but p’s were told they did well. Non-contingent Success Condition: intellectual test contained mostly unsolvable items, but p’s were told they did well.

11. 11 Choice of Drug Actavil facilitates intellectual performance. Pandocrin inhibits intellectual performance. 10mg 7.5mg 5mg 2.5mg 0 2.5mg 5mg 7.5mg 10mg Actavil Actavil PandocrinPandocrin

12. 12 Results Contingent success Non-contingent success Males13%70% Females26%40%

13. 13 Gender Differences in Self- Handicapping Males are more likely to self-handicap, but only on measures of behavioral self- handicapping. Males are more likely to self-handicap, but only on measures of behavioral self- handicapping. Why? Why? Women may be less threatened by failure or they may experience the same amount of threat, but choose to deal with it differently (Hirt et al., 2000).

14. 14 Self-Esteem Differences in S-H Tice (1991) Self-enhancement condition: test can clearly identify high ability, but not low ability. Self-enhancement condition: test can clearly identify high ability, but not low ability. Self-protection condition: test can clearly identify low ability, but not high ability. Self-protection condition: test can clearly identify low ability, but not high ability. Also, test framed as important or unimportant. Also, test framed as important or unimportant. DV: amount of time practicing before test. DV: amount of time practicing before test.

15. 15 Self-Esteem Differences in S-H

16. 16 Consequences of Self- Handicapping Rhodewalt et al. (1991) found that self- handicapping leads to better mood and self- esteem following failure. Rhodewalt et al. (1991) found that self- handicapping leads to better mood and self- esteem following failure. Zuckerman et al. (1998) show that there are costs in the long run. Zuckerman et al. (1998) show that there are costs in the long run.

17. 17 Zuckerman et al. (1998) Study 1: Students completed questionnaires at beginning and end of semester. Students completed questionnaires at beginning and end of semester. Higher SH predicts lower GPA. Higher SH predicts lower GPA.

18. 18 Zuckerman et al. (1998) Study 2: Replicated Study 1 Replicated Study 1 Found cyclical relationship between SE and SH. Found cyclical relationship between SE and SH. Also cyclical relationship between negative affect and SH. Also cyclical relationship between negative affect and SH.