- Email: [email protected]
The relationship between self-esteem and self-worth protection strategies in university students
Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 236–241
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Letter to the Editor
The relationship between self-esteem and self-worth protection strategies in university students María del Mar Ferradás a,⁎, Carlos Freire a,1, Antonio Valle a,1, José Carlos Núñez b, Bibiana Regueiro a,1, Guillermo Vallejo b a b
Research group in Educational Psychology (GIPED), Department of Evolutionary and Educational Psychology, University of A Coruña, Spain Faculty of Psychology, University of Oviedo, Feijóo Square, 33003 Oviedo, Asturias, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 14 May 2015 Received in revised form 1 September 2015 Accepted 15 September 2015 Available online 25 September 2015 Keywords: Self-esteem Self-handicapping Defensive pessimism Gender University students Linear and quadratic relationship
a b s t r a c t Self-esteem is one of the variables that are most frequently linked to the adoption of self-protection strategies. However, the nature of this relationship continues to be controversial. The present study examines the relationship between self-esteem and the use of behavioral and claimed self-handicapping, as well as of defensive pessimism, and their relationship with gender in university students. A total of 1031 university students took part in the study. For women, polynomial regression analysis demonstrated a negative linear relationship of claimed self-handicapping and a tendency toward a quadratic relationship in the case of behavioral self-handicapping, as well as a mainly quadratic relationship in the use of defensive pessimism. For men, a negative linear relationship was found in all cases. The theoretical and psychoeducational implications of these findings are discussed. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Assuming Covington's (1992) approach that states that humans need to preserve positive self-appraisal, fear of failure drives some students to prioritize the protection of their personal competence. From this perspective, self-handicapping and defensive pessimism can be considered to be two possible strategies that students can adopt to address potential threats to their self-worth. Self-handicapping is a proactive attempt to protect an individual's self-worth through the deliberate creation of obstacles, real or imaginary, which, although they hinder or impede the individual's successful performance, provide a convincing alibi in the face of a possible poor performance (Arkin & Baumgardner, 1985). Another strategy involving an anticipatory maneuver in the face of possible negative outcomes is defensive pessimism. In this case, despite having a previous history of success, the individual sets excessively low achievement expectations for the tasks, accurately predicting how failure will be triggered. However, the low expectations serve as a
⁎ Corresponding author at: Faculty of Educational Studies, University of A Coruña, Elviña Campus, 15071, A Coruña, Spain. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.M. Ferradás), [email protected] (C. Freire), [email protected] (A. Valle), [email protected] (J.C. Núñez), [email protected] (B. Regueiro), [email protected] (G. Vallejo). 1 Faculty of Educational Studies, University of A Coruña, Elviña Campus, 15071, A Coruña, Spain.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.029 0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
stimulus to increase the individual's effort to prevent the negative prediction from occurring (Norem, 2002). Although it cannot be denied that through the student's prism, selfhandicapping and defensive pessimism are self-defense mechanisms that are established in response to the fear of failure; one of the most controversial issues regarding the adoption of these strategies lies in their role in self-esteem. With regard to self-handicapping, its relationship with self-esteem is unclear. Some studies conclude that people with high self-esteem are more likely to self-handicap (Kim, Lee, & Hong, 2012; Tice & Baumeister, 1990), other investigations argue otherwise (Coudevylle, Gernigon, & Martin Ginis, 2011; Finez & Sherman, 2012); however, others (e.g., Rhodewalt & Hill, 1995) consider self-esteem to be a variable that is relatively independent of self-handicapping. Within the academic context, several authors seem to endorse the second position (Eronen, Nurmi, & Salmela-Aro, 1998; Pulford, Johnson, & Awaida, 2005; Rodríguez, Cabanach, Valle, Núñez, & González-Pienda, 2004). Thus, Valle, Cabanach, Rodríguez, Núñez, and González-Pienda (2005) suggest the possibility that students with low self-esteem have a greater need to protect themselves from the emotional consequences of failure. However, they also admit that it is plausible that students with high self-esteem have more to lose in achievement contexts and, consequently, more to protect. Somewhat in keeping with this approach, it is postulated that individuals with low self-esteem use selfhandicapping for self-protection and that individuals with high selfesteem use self-handicapping for self-enhancement (Tice, 1991).
M.M. Ferradás et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 236–241
One of the most important contributions of this research is the differentiation between behavioral and claimed self-handicapping, insofar as some individuals verbalize the existence of impediments that inhibit achievement (claimed self-handicapping), whereas others engage in actions that are incompatible with good achievement (behavioral selfhandicapping). This distinction is important because behavioral selfhandicapping constitutes a more maladaptive mechanism than claimed self-handicapping. Thus, whereas the former always implies selfsabotaging activities (e.g., partying the night before an exam), claimed self-handicapping (e.g., claiming anxiety before a test) does not necessarily compromise the individual's performance (Hirt, Deppe, & Gordon, 1991). Some research linking these two types of self-handicapping with self-esteem has been developed in competitive sports, where it has been suggested that low self-esteem would favor claimed selfhandicapping (Coudevylle, Martin Ginis, & Famose, 2008; Martin & Brawley, 2002). The recent work of Tandler, Schwinger, Kamisnki, and Stiensmeier-Pelster (2014) is, to date, the only study dealing with this issue in academic environments, although only partially, because selfesteem is considered to be a mediator between self-affirmation and claimed self-handicapping. Research into the role of self-esteem in the function of defensive pessimism is also scarce. Most investigations have examined this topic comparing the levels of self-esteem of defensive pessimists with those of individuals who use other strategies. Thus, whereas some studies (e.g., Eronen et al., 1998; Norem, 2002) argue that defensive pessimists make lower self-appraisals than strategic optimists, Rodríguez et al. (2004) found no significant differences between the self-esteem levels reported by defensive pessimistic university students and those who did not resort to this strategy. However, Norem and Burdzovic (2007) have shown a significant long-term increase in the self-esteem of defensive pessimists, indicating the possibility that defensive pessimists' selfesteem has high levels of fluctuation, as suggested in other studies (A. J. Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001; Yamawaki, Tschanz, & Feick, 2004). In short, the few available precedents do not offer a clear stance on the link between self-esteem and self-protection strategies. In this sense, not only is the sign (positive or negative) of this association debatable but the fact that preliminary research has not determined the type of relationship is also debatable (i.e., linear, quadratic). Thus, several studies have established the existence of a relationship between selfesteem and self-protective strategies by means of bivariate correlations (e.g., Coudevylle et al., 2008; Martin & Brawley, 2002). In others, selfhandicapping and defensive pessimism are independent variables (Eronen et al., 1998; Rodríguez et al., 2004). The studies analyzing self-esteem as a categorical variable (e.g., Finez & Sherman, 2012; Tandler et al., 2014; Tice & Baumeister, 1990) only establish two levels of self-esteem (high vs. low). Hence, it could be of interest to consider more than two levels of self-esteem (e.g., as a continuous variable) to observe its specific relationship with self-protective strategies. To our knowledge, this study is the first to propose this type of analysis, considering the two types of self-handicapping mechanisms and defensive pessimism. In particular, we intend to examine whether the level of self-esteem is associated with a differential use of behavioral and claimed self-handicapping, as well as of defensive pessimism, in the university context and the nature of these relationships (linear, quadratic, etc.). According to some of the above-mentioned studies, we expect that the lower the students' level of self-esteem, the greater their use of the three strategies. For this purpose, the effect of gender will be controlled. There is abundant literature describing self-handicapping, particularly behavioral self-handicapping, as a predominantly male strategy (e.g., McCrea, Hirt, & Milner, 2008). In contrast, in the case of defensive pessimism, the few antecedents analyzing this topic seem to indicate that women are more prone to its use (Lim, 2009). However, we have no knowledge of previous research providing information on gender differences in terms of the type of relationship between self-esteem and self-
237
protective strategies. In view of these data, we are inclined to consider that gender could significantly influence the results of the investigation. 2. Methods 2.1. Participants The participants of this study were university students who were enrolled in Educational Sciences (Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, Social Education, and Speech Therapy) and Health Sciences (Nursing, Physiotherapy, and Podiatry). Random cluster sampling was carried out, considering each class-group of students as a cluster, following the organization established by the centers. After excluding 56 cases with missing values, the sample was composed of 1031 students (58.22% of the total of enrolled students) aged between 18 and 53 years (M = 21.36, SD = 3.80). Women comprised 86.3% of the participants. With regard to the students' career, 69.93% were enrolled in Educational Sciences, and the remaining 30.07% were enrolled in Health Sciences. 2.2. Measurement instruments 2.2.1. Rosenberg self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965) This 10-item instrument (e.g., “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”) has shown adequate internal consistency in previous research (e.g., Vázquez, Jiménez, & Vázquez-Morejón, 2004), with a reliability of α = .88, which was obtained from the data in our study. Participants responded on a five-point Likert scale, ranging between 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). 2.2.2. Self-handicapping scale (A. J. Martin, 1998) This scale differentiates between active and claimed selfhandicapping. Several previous studies with university students (e.g., A. J. Martin, 1998; Martin et al., 2001) guarantee the reliability of this instrument. The structure factor obtained from our research data allow us to differentiate two factors: claimed self-handicapping (16 items; e.g., “I tend not to study very hard before exams so I have an excuse if I don't do as well as I hoped”) and behavioral self-handicapping (9 items, e.g., “When an exam or assignment is coming up, I am inclined to tell others that I'm more anxious that I really I am, so if I don't do as well as I hoped, they will think that is the reason”). The two factors explain 42.18% of the total variance. Two of the 27 items that composed the original instrument were excluded because they had factor loadings below .40. The reliability indices ranged between α = .91 (claimed self-handicapping) and α = .84 (behavioral self-handicapping), with an internal consistency of α = .92 for the entire scale. The participants' responses were rated on a Likert scale ranging between 1 (never) and 5 (always). 2.2.3. Defensive pessimism questionnaire (Norem, 2002) This 12-item instrument (e.g., “Considering what can go wrong helps me to prepare”) had an internal consistency of α = .89, in accordance with previous studies (Norem, 2009). The participants' responses were rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). 2.3. Procedure The data were collected at the centers in which the participants were enrolled, specifically, in their own classrooms, and during the academic schedule. The participants were instructed about how to fill in the questionnaires, and they were urged to focus exclusively on the academic facet when reading the items. We emphasized the importance of responding sincerely to all of the issues raised. The subjects were also informed of the voluntariness and anonymity of their participation in the study, guaranteeing the confidentiality of the results.
238
M.M. Ferradás et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 236–241
2.4. Data analysis The data were analyzed in two stages. First, the correlations matrix and the usual descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, kurtosis, skewness) were calculated and analyzed. To analyze the distribution of the variables, the normal statistical criteria established by Finney and DiStefano (2006), which indicate scores of ±2 and ±7 as the limits of skewness and kurtosis, respectively, were taken as references. Second, to address the relationship between self-esteem and self-worth protection strategies, polynomial regression analyses were performed, with self-esteem as the independent variable (predictor) and the selfhandicapping strategies (behavioral and claimed) and defensive pessimism as the dependent variables. Gender was entered as a covariate, and the interaction between self-esteem and gender was estimated. The analyzed model was as follows: Y = β0 + β1Self-esteem + β2Self-esteem2 + β3Gender + β4Selfesteem × Gender where Y is the predicted value of each of the three self-protective strategies, β0 indicates the value of the predicted dependent variables when self-esteem is 0, β1 and β2 indicate the value of the terms of the linear and quadratic relationships, β3 indicates the value of the covariate (gender), and β4 represents the value of the possible interaction between self-esteem and gender. The proportion of the variance of the response that is explained by the model was obtained by computing the adjusted or corrected partial determination coefficient (R2), which closely coincides with the value of eta squared of analysis of variance and is interpreted to be the effect size of R. The criteria used to interpret the effect size followed the guidelines of Cohen (1988), who considered values of approximately R2 = .02 to be a small effect, values of approximately R2 = .13 to be a medium effect, and values higher than R2 = .26 to be a large effect. The polynomial regression analysis was conducted with SAS PROC REG® 9.4 TS1M2 (2014).
Table 2 Polynomial regression with self-handicapping and defensive pessimism as dependent variables, self-esteem as the independent variable, and gender as the covariate.
Behavioral self-handicapping Quadratic Model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 ) Self-esteem2 (β2 ) Gender (β3 ) Interaction (β4 ) Linear model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 ) Gender (β3 ) Interaction (β4 ) Claimed self-handicapping Quadratic model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 ) Self-esteem2 (β2 ) Gender (β3 ) Linear model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 ) Gender (β3 ) Defensive pessimism Quadratic model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 ) Self-esteem2 (β2 ) Gender (β3 ) Interaction (β4 )
Parameter estimate
Standard error
t value
Pr N |t|
3.13142 −1.10040 0.21330 1.94433 −0.53750
1.50799 0.88598 0.13110 0.44532 0.13029
2.08 −1.24 1.63 4.37 −4.13
.0380 .2140 .1040 b.0001 b.0001
0.83671 0.31729 1.95620 −0.54146
0.53130 0.15490 0.44561 0.13038
1.57 2.05 4.39 −4.15
.1156 .0408 .0001 .0001
5.10543 −1.63310 0.20957 −0.08063
1.42718 0.87915 0.13252 0.06835
3.58 −1.86 1.58 −1.18
0.0004 0.0635 0.1141 0.2384
2.86591 −0.24468 −0.08214
0.17701 0.04534 0.06839
16.19 −5.40 −1.20
b.0001 b.0001 .2300
14.57593 −5.93322 0.69084 −1.27197 0.31990
1.40392 0.82445 0.12213 0.41486 0.12138
10.38 −7.20 5.66 −3.07 2.64
b.0001 b.0001 b.0001 0.0022 0.0085
R2
0.063
0.061
0.030
0.027
0.372
3.2. Polynomial regression analysis 3. Results 3.1. Descriptive statistics Table 1 presents the correlation coefficients and the means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis of the variables analyzed in this study. Table 1. As shown in the correlation matrix, all of the correlations (with the exception of the relation between claimed self-handicapping and defensive pessimism) were statistically significant, mostly at p b .001. The results of Bartlett's sphericity test showed that the variables are sufficiently intercorrelated, χ2(6) = 1030.04, p b .001. Individual analysis of the variables showed that self-esteem correlated negatively and significantly with the three self-protection strategies. Table 1 Means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis and correlation matrix of the total sample.*, **
1. Self-esteem 2. Behavioral Self-handicapping 3. Claimed Self-handicapping 4. Defensive pessimism M SD Skewness Kurtosis
1
2
3
– −.20** −.17** −.59** 3.41 0.52 −0.39 −1.41
– .63** .09* 2.05 0.77 0.96 −0.06
– −.01 1.94 0.76 0.88 −0.27
4
– 2.35 0.87 0.83 −0.48
Note. Self-esteem scale (1 = strongly disagree,…, 5 = strongly agree). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism scales (1 = never,…, 5 = always). * p b .01. ** p b .001.
The polynomial regression analysis results are presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4 and Figs. 1 and 2. For the two types of self-handicapping in Table 2, we first provide data corresponding to the estimation of a quadratic model, and because this term (self-esteem2) was not statistically significant, we present the data corresponding to a linear model. However, for behavioral self-handicapping, we also provide the data of the interaction between the linear components of self-esteem and gender because it was statistically significant (which was not the case for claimed self-handicapping). Last, for defensive pessimism, we only provide the data for the quadratic model because it was statistically significant (ˆ β2 = 0.69084, p b .0001), indicating that the relationship between the two variables (self-esteem and defensive pessimism) is best explained by a hybrid trend (partly linear and partly quadratic). Table 2. The data from these analyses show that, according to the linear model, the relation between self-esteem and self-handicapping strategies (behavioral and claimed) is negative and statistically significant at
Table 3 Polynomial regression by gender with behavioral self-handicapping as the dependent variable and self-esteem as the independent variable. Parameter estimate
Standard error
t value
Pr N |t|
Women Linear model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 )
2.79291 −0.22417
0.16682 0.04822
16.74 −4.65
b.0001 b.0001
Men Linear model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 )
8.02621 −2.80673
3.63393 2.24607
2.21 −1.25
0.0288 0.2136
R2 0.024
0.230
M.M. Ferradás et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 236–241 Table 4 Polynomial regression by gender with defensive pessimism as the dependent variable and self-esteem as the independent variable.
Women Quadratic model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 ) Self-esteem2 (β2 ) Men Quadratic model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 ) Self-esteem2 (β2 ) Linear model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 )
Parameter estimate
Standard error
t value
Pr N |t|
13.89825 −5.98134 0.74637
1.40929 0.86858 0.13087
9.86 −6.89 5.70
b.0001 b.0001 b.0001
8.02621 −2.80673 0.31460
3.63393 2.24607 0.33941
2.21 −1.25 0.93
0.0288 0.2136 0.3556
4.67679 −0.72751
0.38306 0.11229
12.21 −6.48
b.0001 b.0001
R2
0.3878
0.2367
0.2319
p b .0001 in both cases, indicating that the higher the self-esteem, the less use is made of self-handicapping strategies, and vice versa. The effect size of the relationship is small for claimed self-handicapping (R2 = 0.027) and is small tending toward moderate for behavioral self-handicapping (R2 = 0.061). Fig. 1 reflects our prior comments on the interaction between selfesteem and gender for the prediction of the use of behavioral selfhandicapping strategies: men score higher than women in the use of such strategies when the values of self-esteem are low; the situation tends to equalize for intermediate values and reverts for high values of self-esteem (β4 = − 0.54156, p b 0.001). In this case, gender was also statistically significant (β3 =1.9562, p b 0.001). The positive coefficient indicates that, on average, men score higher than women in behavioral self-handicapping. Table 3 presents the results of the analysis for women and men separately in the prediction of behavioral self-handicapping. It can be observed that for men, the pattern of the data follows a straight line to a greater degree (R2 = 0.23) than the pattern shown by women (R2 = 0.024). Therefore, in the case of men, the relationship between self-esteem and behavioral self-handicapping is mainly linear and the magnitude of the fit to a descending linear pattern is quite acceptable, whereas women's response pattern is more difficult to define, with a small effect size. The relationship between self-esteem and defensive pessimism is somewhat more complex. As shown in Table 2, this relationship has a linear negative component and a quadratic positive component. When both a negative linear effect and a positive quadratic effect occur, the relationship between the two variables is concave, that is, it can be
239
described by a U-shaped graph. In this case, defensive pessimism increases with low values of self-esteem; it decreases until self-esteem reaches a value of approximately 3.5. The value of defensive pessimism remains stable until reaching 4. With values of self-esteem above 4, defensive pessimism tends to rise very slowly. Last, in this case, the effect size is large (the quadratic model explains a substantial amount of the relationship between the two variables: 37.2%). Because the gender effect was statistically significant for defensive pessimism (β3 = − 1.27197. p = 0.0022), as well as for its interaction with the linear component (β4 = 0.31990, p = 0.0085), the model was adjusted separately for women and men (see Table 4). The results showed that whereas for women a quadratic model is suitable to describe the relationship between self-esteem and defensive pessimism, in the case of men, a linear model is sufficient to describe this relationship—the quadratic term of the equation was not statistically significant (β2 = 0.31460, p = 0.3556). Fig. 2 depicts these results graphically (observed and predicted values of self-esteem). The graph on the left (women) confirms that the quadratic function better describes the relationship between defensive pessimism and self-esteem, whereas the graph on the right (men) confirms that the linear function better represents this relationship. 4. Discussion Despite the remarkable research results regarding the relation between self-esteem and self-defensive strategies, especially in the case of self-handicapping, more research clarifying the type of concrete relationship (i.e., linear, quadratic) that links them is still required. The results of this study suggest that the relationship between selfesteem and self-handicapping (behavioral and claimed) is negative and well described by a linear trend, although it is necessary to take into account the interaction of this linear model with gender (especially in the case of behavioral self-handicapping). However, the relationship between self-esteem and defensive pessimism for women is better described by a quadratic model, but this is not true for men, where the relationship is linear and negative (again, the gender factor acts as a moderator variable). Regarding self-handicapping, our results show that students with low self-esteem are significantly more likely to use this tactics. This finding partially coincides with our initial hypothesis (based on the results of previous investigation). Although it was confirmed that lower selfesteem was related to higher claimed self-handicapping, both by women and men, this did not occur for behavioral self-handicapping in women because, in this case, the relationship between the two variables seems to be of a more quadratic nature. However, differences between men and women were also observed in the use of behavioral selfhandicapping when self-esteem levels are low or high: when they are
Fig. 1. Relationship between behavioral self-handicapping and self-esteem by gender.
240
M.M. Ferradás et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 236–241
Fig. 2. Data and predictions of defensive pessimism for values of self-esteem in women (left graph) and men (right graph).
low, women use more behavioral self-handicapping than men, whereas the situation is reversed when self-esteem is high. This seems to indicate that low self-esteem makes students particularly vulnerable to self-handicapping, as suggested in other works (e.g., Coudevylle et al., 2011; Finez & Sherman, 2012; Pulford et al., 2005; Rodríguez et al., 2004), and this is especially true for women, as suggested in our study. In terms of defensive pessimism, the results of this study are consistent with previous research findings that show that defensive pessimists' self-esteem is far from high or, at least, is not as high as that of the strategic optimists (see Eronen et al., 1998; Norem, 2002). However, our data also suggest that the relationship between self-esteem and defensive pessimism is different for men and women, both at the level of strategy use and the type of relationship. Thus, when self-esteem is particularly low, women use defensive pessimism less than men, whereas when self-esteem is particularly high, women use it more than men. Assuming that students who fail academically have more doubts regarding their personal worth (Covington, 1992), the history of poor academic performance that often accompanies self-handicappers (e.g., Zuckerman, Kieffer, & Knee, 1998) justifies, at least in part, their low self-appraisals and, consequently, the need to protect themselves from a potential new disappointment through self-handicapping strategies. However, this poor performance does not seem to be prototypical of defensive pessimistic students. This leads us to consider that there are other reasons for defensive pessimists' low self-esteem that are different from those of the self-handicappers. Norem (2002) considered that defensive pessimists' negative self-thoughts are of a strategic nature and contribute to their achieving a good performance. This hypothesis agrees with the idea that defensive pessimists' self-esteem, rather than being permanently low, fluctuates (e.g., Norem & Burdzovic, 2007; Yamawaki et al., 2004), increasing when they are successful and decreasing when they must face a new challenge. The transversal nature of the research design carried out does not allow us to analyze the extent to which the use of their respective strategies involves changes in the self-esteem of self-handicappers and defensive pessimists, which is an obvious limitation of our work. Future studies could therefore analyze this issue by means of longitudinal or repeated measures designs. The results of the present investigation do not allow us to determine whether students with low self-esteem use selfhandicapping for self-protection, as some previous studies have suggested (e.g., Tice, 1991). The use of self-report data is also an important limitation. Thus, this data collection procedure does not allow us to
accurately determine cases in which students who admit using claimed self-handicapping also use behavioral self-handicapping. Another limitation is the sample composition because the investigation was carried out only with students studying Educational Sciences and Health Sciences. The clear preponderance of female students in these degrees could interfere with the results, an especially important issue when considering the abundant preliminary research associating gender with the differential use of self-protective strategies. Our data are consistent with this assumption because, when controlling for the effect of gender, we found that this variable is significantly related to such tactics. Hence, we must be cautious about generalizing the results to the entire university population. Despite these limitations, the findings of this research have important theoretical and psychoeducational implications. Regarding theoretical connotations, our research data suggest that the relationship between self-esteem and self-protective strategies (self-handicapping and defensive pessimism) is different depending on the type of strategy and gender. Regarding education, it is recommended to intervene on the factors of the teaching-learning process that promote or strengthen students' low self-appraisals. In this regard, we agree with Thompson (1994) on the suitability of educational interventions aimed at reducing evaluative threat and student's uncertain control. References Arkin, R. M., & Baumgardner, A. (1985). Self-handicapping. In J. H. Harvey, & G. Weary (Eds.), Attribution: Basic issues and applications (pp. 169–202). New York: Academic Press. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Coudevylle, G. R., Gernigon, C., & Martin Ginis, K. A. (2011). Self-esteem, self-confidence, anxiety, and claimed self-handicapping: a mediational analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 670–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.05.008. Coudevylle, G. R., Martin Ginis, K. A., & Famose, J. P. (2008). Determinants of selfhandicapping strategies in sport and their effects on athletic performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 36, 391–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2008.36.3.391. Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press. Eronen, S., Nurmi, J., & Salmela-Aro, K. (1998). Optimistic, defensive pessimistic, impulsive, and self-handicapping strategies in university environments. Learning and Instruction, 8, 159–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(97)00015–7. Finez, L., & Sherman, D. K. (2012). Train in vain: the role of the self in claimed selfhandicapping strategies. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 600–620. Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock, & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural Equation Modeling. A Second Course (pp. 269–314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
M.M. Ferradás et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 236–241 Hirt, E. R., Deppe, R. K., & Gordon, L. J. (1991). Self-reported versus behavioral selfhandicapping: empirical evidence for a theoretical distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 981–991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.6. 981. Kim, H., Lee, K., & Hong, Y. (2012). Claiming the validity of negative in-group stereotypes when foreseeing a challenge: a self-handicapping account. Self and Identity, 11, 285–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.561560. Lim, L. (2009). A two-factor model of defensive pessimism and its relations with achievement motives. Journal of Psychology, 143, 318–336. http://dx.doi.org/10. 3200/JRLP.143.3.318-336. Martin, A. J. (1998). Self-handicapping and Defensive Pessimism: Predictors and Consequences from a Self-worth Motivation Perspective. (Doctoral dissertation, Western Sidney). Retrieved from http://researchdirect.uws.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A587. 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 of Educational Psychology, 93, 87–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00220663.93.1.87. Martin, K. A., & Brawley, L. R. (2002). Self-handicapping in physical achievement settings: the contributions of self-esteem and self-efficacy. Self and Identity, 1, 337–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860290106814. McCrea, S. M., Hirt, E. R., & Milner, B. J. (2008). She works hard for the money: valuing effort underlies gender differences in behavioral self-handicapping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 292–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007. 05.006. Norem, J. K. (2002). The Positive Power of Negative Thinking: Using Defensive Pessimism to Harness Anxiety and Perform at Your Peak. New York: Basic Books. Norem, J. K. (2009). Psychological Defensiveness: Repression, Blunting, and Defensive Pessimism. In M. R. Leary, & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 480–494). New York: Guilford Press. Norem, J. K., & Burdzovic, J. (2007). Understanding Journeys: Individual Growth Analysis as a Tool for Studying Individual Differences in Change Over Time. In A. D. Ong, & M. V. Dulmen (Eds.), Handbook of Methods in Positive Psychology (pp. 477–486). London: Oxford University Press. Pulford, B. D., Johnson, A., & Awaida, M. (2005). A cross-cultural study of predictors of self-handicapping in university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 727–737. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.008.
241
Rhodewalt, F., & Hill, S. (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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1604_1. Rodríguez, S., Cabanach, R. G., Valle, A., Núñez, J. C., & González-Pienda, J. A. (2004). Diferencias en el uso de self-handicapping y pesimismo defensivo y sus relaciones con las metas de logro, la autoestima y las estrategias de autorregulación [Differences in use of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism and their relation with achievement goals, self-esteem, and self-regulation strategies]. Psicothema, 16, 625–631. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. SAS Institute, Inc. (2014). SAS/STAT® 13.1 User's Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc. Tandler, S., Schwinger, M., Kamisnki, K., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2014). Self-affirmation buffers claimed self-handicapping? A test of contextual and individual moderators. Psychology, 5, 321–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.55042. Thompson, T. (1994). Self-worth protection: Review and implications for the classroom. Educational Review, 46(3), 259–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013191940460304. 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, 711–725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.711. Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1990). Self-esteem, self-handicapping, and selfpresentation: the strategy of inadequate practice. Journal of Personality, 58, 443–464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00237.x. Valle, A., Cabanach, R. G., Rodríguez, S., Núñez, J. C., & González-Pienda, J. A. (2005). Selfworth protection strategies in higher educational students: exploring a model of predictors and consequences. In R. Nata (Ed.), New directions in higher education (pp. 99–126). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Vázquez, A. J., Jiménez, R., & Vázquez-Morejón, R. (2004). Escala de autoestima de Rosenberg: fiabilidad y validez en población clínica española [Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Reliability and validity in a Spanish clinical sample]. Apuntes de Psicología, 22, 247–255. Yamawaki, N., Tschanz, B. T., & Feick, D. L. (2004). Defensive pessimism, self-esteem instability and goal strivings. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 233–249. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/02699930341000004. Zuckerman, M., Kieffer, S. C., & Knee, C. R. (1998). Consequences of self-handicapping: effects on coping, academic performance, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1619–1628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.6.1619.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Letter to the Editor
The relationship between self-esteem and self-worth protection strategies in university students María del Mar Ferradás a,⁎, Carlos Freire a,1, Antonio Valle a,1, José Carlos Núñez b, Bibiana Regueiro a,1, Guillermo Vallejo b a b
Research group in Educational Psychology (GIPED), Department of Evolutionary and Educational Psychology, University of A Coruña, Spain Faculty of Psychology, University of Oviedo, Feijóo Square, 33003 Oviedo, Asturias, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 14 May 2015 Received in revised form 1 September 2015 Accepted 15 September 2015 Available online 25 September 2015 Keywords: Self-esteem Self-handicapping Defensive pessimism Gender University students Linear and quadratic relationship
a b s t r a c t Self-esteem is one of the variables that are most frequently linked to the adoption of self-protection strategies. However, the nature of this relationship continues to be controversial. The present study examines the relationship between self-esteem and the use of behavioral and claimed self-handicapping, as well as of defensive pessimism, and their relationship with gender in university students. A total of 1031 university students took part in the study. For women, polynomial regression analysis demonstrated a negative linear relationship of claimed self-handicapping and a tendency toward a quadratic relationship in the case of behavioral self-handicapping, as well as a mainly quadratic relationship in the use of defensive pessimism. For men, a negative linear relationship was found in all cases. The theoretical and psychoeducational implications of these findings are discussed. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Assuming Covington's (1992) approach that states that humans need to preserve positive self-appraisal, fear of failure drives some students to prioritize the protection of their personal competence. From this perspective, self-handicapping and defensive pessimism can be considered to be two possible strategies that students can adopt to address potential threats to their self-worth. Self-handicapping is a proactive attempt to protect an individual's self-worth through the deliberate creation of obstacles, real or imaginary, which, although they hinder or impede the individual's successful performance, provide a convincing alibi in the face of a possible poor performance (Arkin & Baumgardner, 1985). Another strategy involving an anticipatory maneuver in the face of possible negative outcomes is defensive pessimism. In this case, despite having a previous history of success, the individual sets excessively low achievement expectations for the tasks, accurately predicting how failure will be triggered. However, the low expectations serve as a
⁎ Corresponding author at: Faculty of Educational Studies, University of A Coruña, Elviña Campus, 15071, A Coruña, Spain. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.M. Ferradás), [email protected] (C. Freire), [email protected] (A. Valle), [email protected] (J.C. Núñez), [email protected] (B. Regueiro), [email protected] (G. Vallejo). 1 Faculty of Educational Studies, University of A Coruña, Elviña Campus, 15071, A Coruña, Spain.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.029 0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
stimulus to increase the individual's effort to prevent the negative prediction from occurring (Norem, 2002). Although it cannot be denied that through the student's prism, selfhandicapping and defensive pessimism are self-defense mechanisms that are established in response to the fear of failure; one of the most controversial issues regarding the adoption of these strategies lies in their role in self-esteem. With regard to self-handicapping, its relationship with self-esteem is unclear. Some studies conclude that people with high self-esteem are more likely to self-handicap (Kim, Lee, & Hong, 2012; Tice & Baumeister, 1990), other investigations argue otherwise (Coudevylle, Gernigon, & Martin Ginis, 2011; Finez & Sherman, 2012); however, others (e.g., Rhodewalt & Hill, 1995) consider self-esteem to be a variable that is relatively independent of self-handicapping. Within the academic context, several authors seem to endorse the second position (Eronen, Nurmi, & Salmela-Aro, 1998; Pulford, Johnson, & Awaida, 2005; Rodríguez, Cabanach, Valle, Núñez, & González-Pienda, 2004). Thus, Valle, Cabanach, Rodríguez, Núñez, and González-Pienda (2005) suggest the possibility that students with low self-esteem have a greater need to protect themselves from the emotional consequences of failure. However, they also admit that it is plausible that students with high self-esteem have more to lose in achievement contexts and, consequently, more to protect. Somewhat in keeping with this approach, it is postulated that individuals with low self-esteem use selfhandicapping for self-protection and that individuals with high selfesteem use self-handicapping for self-enhancement (Tice, 1991).
M.M. Ferradás et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 236–241
One of the most important contributions of this research is the differentiation between behavioral and claimed self-handicapping, insofar as some individuals verbalize the existence of impediments that inhibit achievement (claimed self-handicapping), whereas others engage in actions that are incompatible with good achievement (behavioral selfhandicapping). This distinction is important because behavioral selfhandicapping constitutes a more maladaptive mechanism than claimed self-handicapping. Thus, whereas the former always implies selfsabotaging activities (e.g., partying the night before an exam), claimed self-handicapping (e.g., claiming anxiety before a test) does not necessarily compromise the individual's performance (Hirt, Deppe, & Gordon, 1991). Some research linking these two types of self-handicapping with self-esteem has been developed in competitive sports, where it has been suggested that low self-esteem would favor claimed selfhandicapping (Coudevylle, Martin Ginis, & Famose, 2008; Martin & Brawley, 2002). The recent work of Tandler, Schwinger, Kamisnki, and Stiensmeier-Pelster (2014) is, to date, the only study dealing with this issue in academic environments, although only partially, because selfesteem is considered to be a mediator between self-affirmation and claimed self-handicapping. Research into the role of self-esteem in the function of defensive pessimism is also scarce. Most investigations have examined this topic comparing the levels of self-esteem of defensive pessimists with those of individuals who use other strategies. Thus, whereas some studies (e.g., Eronen et al., 1998; Norem, 2002) argue that defensive pessimists make lower self-appraisals than strategic optimists, Rodríguez et al. (2004) found no significant differences between the self-esteem levels reported by defensive pessimistic university students and those who did not resort to this strategy. However, Norem and Burdzovic (2007) have shown a significant long-term increase in the self-esteem of defensive pessimists, indicating the possibility that defensive pessimists' selfesteem has high levels of fluctuation, as suggested in other studies (A. J. Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001; Yamawaki, Tschanz, & Feick, 2004). In short, the few available precedents do not offer a clear stance on the link between self-esteem and self-protection strategies. In this sense, not only is the sign (positive or negative) of this association debatable but the fact that preliminary research has not determined the type of relationship is also debatable (i.e., linear, quadratic). Thus, several studies have established the existence of a relationship between selfesteem and self-protective strategies by means of bivariate correlations (e.g., Coudevylle et al., 2008; Martin & Brawley, 2002). In others, selfhandicapping and defensive pessimism are independent variables (Eronen et al., 1998; Rodríguez et al., 2004). The studies analyzing self-esteem as a categorical variable (e.g., Finez & Sherman, 2012; Tandler et al., 2014; Tice & Baumeister, 1990) only establish two levels of self-esteem (high vs. low). Hence, it could be of interest to consider more than two levels of self-esteem (e.g., as a continuous variable) to observe its specific relationship with self-protective strategies. To our knowledge, this study is the first to propose this type of analysis, considering the two types of self-handicapping mechanisms and defensive pessimism. In particular, we intend to examine whether the level of self-esteem is associated with a differential use of behavioral and claimed self-handicapping, as well as of defensive pessimism, in the university context and the nature of these relationships (linear, quadratic, etc.). According to some of the above-mentioned studies, we expect that the lower the students' level of self-esteem, the greater their use of the three strategies. For this purpose, the effect of gender will be controlled. There is abundant literature describing self-handicapping, particularly behavioral self-handicapping, as a predominantly male strategy (e.g., McCrea, Hirt, & Milner, 2008). In contrast, in the case of defensive pessimism, the few antecedents analyzing this topic seem to indicate that women are more prone to its use (Lim, 2009). However, we have no knowledge of previous research providing information on gender differences in terms of the type of relationship between self-esteem and self-
237
protective strategies. In view of these data, we are inclined to consider that gender could significantly influence the results of the investigation. 2. Methods 2.1. Participants The participants of this study were university students who were enrolled in Educational Sciences (Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, Social Education, and Speech Therapy) and Health Sciences (Nursing, Physiotherapy, and Podiatry). Random cluster sampling was carried out, considering each class-group of students as a cluster, following the organization established by the centers. After excluding 56 cases with missing values, the sample was composed of 1031 students (58.22% of the total of enrolled students) aged between 18 and 53 years (M = 21.36, SD = 3.80). Women comprised 86.3% of the participants. With regard to the students' career, 69.93% were enrolled in Educational Sciences, and the remaining 30.07% were enrolled in Health Sciences. 2.2. Measurement instruments 2.2.1. Rosenberg self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965) This 10-item instrument (e.g., “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”) has shown adequate internal consistency in previous research (e.g., Vázquez, Jiménez, & Vázquez-Morejón, 2004), with a reliability of α = .88, which was obtained from the data in our study. Participants responded on a five-point Likert scale, ranging between 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). 2.2.2. Self-handicapping scale (A. J. Martin, 1998) This scale differentiates between active and claimed selfhandicapping. Several previous studies with university students (e.g., A. J. Martin, 1998; Martin et al., 2001) guarantee the reliability of this instrument. The structure factor obtained from our research data allow us to differentiate two factors: claimed self-handicapping (16 items; e.g., “I tend not to study very hard before exams so I have an excuse if I don't do as well as I hoped”) and behavioral self-handicapping (9 items, e.g., “When an exam or assignment is coming up, I am inclined to tell others that I'm more anxious that I really I am, so if I don't do as well as I hoped, they will think that is the reason”). The two factors explain 42.18% of the total variance. Two of the 27 items that composed the original instrument were excluded because they had factor loadings below .40. The reliability indices ranged between α = .91 (claimed self-handicapping) and α = .84 (behavioral self-handicapping), with an internal consistency of α = .92 for the entire scale. The participants' responses were rated on a Likert scale ranging between 1 (never) and 5 (always). 2.2.3. Defensive pessimism questionnaire (Norem, 2002) This 12-item instrument (e.g., “Considering what can go wrong helps me to prepare”) had an internal consistency of α = .89, in accordance with previous studies (Norem, 2009). The participants' responses were rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). 2.3. Procedure The data were collected at the centers in which the participants were enrolled, specifically, in their own classrooms, and during the academic schedule. The participants were instructed about how to fill in the questionnaires, and they were urged to focus exclusively on the academic facet when reading the items. We emphasized the importance of responding sincerely to all of the issues raised. The subjects were also informed of the voluntariness and anonymity of their participation in the study, guaranteeing the confidentiality of the results.
238
M.M. Ferradás et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 236–241
2.4. Data analysis The data were analyzed in two stages. First, the correlations matrix and the usual descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, kurtosis, skewness) were calculated and analyzed. To analyze the distribution of the variables, the normal statistical criteria established by Finney and DiStefano (2006), which indicate scores of ±2 and ±7 as the limits of skewness and kurtosis, respectively, were taken as references. Second, to address the relationship between self-esteem and self-worth protection strategies, polynomial regression analyses were performed, with self-esteem as the independent variable (predictor) and the selfhandicapping strategies (behavioral and claimed) and defensive pessimism as the dependent variables. Gender was entered as a covariate, and the interaction between self-esteem and gender was estimated. The analyzed model was as follows: Y = β0 + β1Self-esteem + β2Self-esteem2 + β3Gender + β4Selfesteem × Gender where Y is the predicted value of each of the three self-protective strategies, β0 indicates the value of the predicted dependent variables when self-esteem is 0, β1 and β2 indicate the value of the terms of the linear and quadratic relationships, β3 indicates the value of the covariate (gender), and β4 represents the value of the possible interaction between self-esteem and gender. The proportion of the variance of the response that is explained by the model was obtained by computing the adjusted or corrected partial determination coefficient (R2), which closely coincides with the value of eta squared of analysis of variance and is interpreted to be the effect size of R. The criteria used to interpret the effect size followed the guidelines of Cohen (1988), who considered values of approximately R2 = .02 to be a small effect, values of approximately R2 = .13 to be a medium effect, and values higher than R2 = .26 to be a large effect. The polynomial regression analysis was conducted with SAS PROC REG® 9.4 TS1M2 (2014).
Table 2 Polynomial regression with self-handicapping and defensive pessimism as dependent variables, self-esteem as the independent variable, and gender as the covariate.
Behavioral self-handicapping Quadratic Model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 ) Self-esteem2 (β2 ) Gender (β3 ) Interaction (β4 ) Linear model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 ) Gender (β3 ) Interaction (β4 ) Claimed self-handicapping Quadratic model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 ) Self-esteem2 (β2 ) Gender (β3 ) Linear model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 ) Gender (β3 ) Defensive pessimism Quadratic model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 ) Self-esteem2 (β2 ) Gender (β3 ) Interaction (β4 )
Parameter estimate
Standard error
t value
Pr N |t|
3.13142 −1.10040 0.21330 1.94433 −0.53750
1.50799 0.88598 0.13110 0.44532 0.13029
2.08 −1.24 1.63 4.37 −4.13
.0380 .2140 .1040 b.0001 b.0001
0.83671 0.31729 1.95620 −0.54146
0.53130 0.15490 0.44561 0.13038
1.57 2.05 4.39 −4.15
.1156 .0408 .0001 .0001
5.10543 −1.63310 0.20957 −0.08063
1.42718 0.87915 0.13252 0.06835
3.58 −1.86 1.58 −1.18
0.0004 0.0635 0.1141 0.2384
2.86591 −0.24468 −0.08214
0.17701 0.04534 0.06839
16.19 −5.40 −1.20
b.0001 b.0001 .2300
14.57593 −5.93322 0.69084 −1.27197 0.31990
1.40392 0.82445 0.12213 0.41486 0.12138
10.38 −7.20 5.66 −3.07 2.64
b.0001 b.0001 b.0001 0.0022 0.0085
R2
0.063
0.061
0.030
0.027
0.372
3.2. Polynomial regression analysis 3. Results 3.1. Descriptive statistics Table 1 presents the correlation coefficients and the means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis of the variables analyzed in this study. Table 1. As shown in the correlation matrix, all of the correlations (with the exception of the relation between claimed self-handicapping and defensive pessimism) were statistically significant, mostly at p b .001. The results of Bartlett's sphericity test showed that the variables are sufficiently intercorrelated, χ2(6) = 1030.04, p b .001. Individual analysis of the variables showed that self-esteem correlated negatively and significantly with the three self-protection strategies. Table 1 Means, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis and correlation matrix of the total sample.*, **
1. Self-esteem 2. Behavioral Self-handicapping 3. Claimed Self-handicapping 4. Defensive pessimism M SD Skewness Kurtosis
1
2
3
– −.20** −.17** −.59** 3.41 0.52 −0.39 −1.41
– .63** .09* 2.05 0.77 0.96 −0.06
– −.01 1.94 0.76 0.88 −0.27
4
– 2.35 0.87 0.83 −0.48
Note. Self-esteem scale (1 = strongly disagree,…, 5 = strongly agree). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism scales (1 = never,…, 5 = always). * p b .01. ** p b .001.
The polynomial regression analysis results are presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4 and Figs. 1 and 2. For the two types of self-handicapping in Table 2, we first provide data corresponding to the estimation of a quadratic model, and because this term (self-esteem2) was not statistically significant, we present the data corresponding to a linear model. However, for behavioral self-handicapping, we also provide the data of the interaction between the linear components of self-esteem and gender because it was statistically significant (which was not the case for claimed self-handicapping). Last, for defensive pessimism, we only provide the data for the quadratic model because it was statistically significant (ˆ β2 = 0.69084, p b .0001), indicating that the relationship between the two variables (self-esteem and defensive pessimism) is best explained by a hybrid trend (partly linear and partly quadratic). Table 2. The data from these analyses show that, according to the linear model, the relation between self-esteem and self-handicapping strategies (behavioral and claimed) is negative and statistically significant at
Table 3 Polynomial regression by gender with behavioral self-handicapping as the dependent variable and self-esteem as the independent variable. Parameter estimate
Standard error
t value
Pr N |t|
Women Linear model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 )
2.79291 −0.22417
0.16682 0.04822
16.74 −4.65
b.0001 b.0001
Men Linear model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 )
8.02621 −2.80673
3.63393 2.24607
2.21 −1.25
0.0288 0.2136
R2 0.024
0.230
M.M. Ferradás et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 236–241 Table 4 Polynomial regression by gender with defensive pessimism as the dependent variable and self-esteem as the independent variable.
Women Quadratic model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 ) Self-esteem2 (β2 ) Men Quadratic model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 ) Self-esteem2 (β2 ) Linear model Intercept (β0 ) Self-esteem (β1 )
Parameter estimate
Standard error
t value
Pr N |t|
13.89825 −5.98134 0.74637
1.40929 0.86858 0.13087
9.86 −6.89 5.70
b.0001 b.0001 b.0001
8.02621 −2.80673 0.31460
3.63393 2.24607 0.33941
2.21 −1.25 0.93
0.0288 0.2136 0.3556
4.67679 −0.72751
0.38306 0.11229
12.21 −6.48
b.0001 b.0001
R2
0.3878
0.2367
0.2319
p b .0001 in both cases, indicating that the higher the self-esteem, the less use is made of self-handicapping strategies, and vice versa. The effect size of the relationship is small for claimed self-handicapping (R2 = 0.027) and is small tending toward moderate for behavioral self-handicapping (R2 = 0.061). Fig. 1 reflects our prior comments on the interaction between selfesteem and gender for the prediction of the use of behavioral selfhandicapping strategies: men score higher than women in the use of such strategies when the values of self-esteem are low; the situation tends to equalize for intermediate values and reverts for high values of self-esteem (β4 = − 0.54156, p b 0.001). In this case, gender was also statistically significant (β3 =1.9562, p b 0.001). The positive coefficient indicates that, on average, men score higher than women in behavioral self-handicapping. Table 3 presents the results of the analysis for women and men separately in the prediction of behavioral self-handicapping. It can be observed that for men, the pattern of the data follows a straight line to a greater degree (R2 = 0.23) than the pattern shown by women (R2 = 0.024). Therefore, in the case of men, the relationship between self-esteem and behavioral self-handicapping is mainly linear and the magnitude of the fit to a descending linear pattern is quite acceptable, whereas women's response pattern is more difficult to define, with a small effect size. The relationship between self-esteem and defensive pessimism is somewhat more complex. As shown in Table 2, this relationship has a linear negative component and a quadratic positive component. When both a negative linear effect and a positive quadratic effect occur, the relationship between the two variables is concave, that is, it can be
239
described by a U-shaped graph. In this case, defensive pessimism increases with low values of self-esteem; it decreases until self-esteem reaches a value of approximately 3.5. The value of defensive pessimism remains stable until reaching 4. With values of self-esteem above 4, defensive pessimism tends to rise very slowly. Last, in this case, the effect size is large (the quadratic model explains a substantial amount of the relationship between the two variables: 37.2%). Because the gender effect was statistically significant for defensive pessimism (β3 = − 1.27197. p = 0.0022), as well as for its interaction with the linear component (β4 = 0.31990, p = 0.0085), the model was adjusted separately for women and men (see Table 4). The results showed that whereas for women a quadratic model is suitable to describe the relationship between self-esteem and defensive pessimism, in the case of men, a linear model is sufficient to describe this relationship—the quadratic term of the equation was not statistically significant (β2 = 0.31460, p = 0.3556). Fig. 2 depicts these results graphically (observed and predicted values of self-esteem). The graph on the left (women) confirms that the quadratic function better describes the relationship between defensive pessimism and self-esteem, whereas the graph on the right (men) confirms that the linear function better represents this relationship. 4. Discussion Despite the remarkable research results regarding the relation between self-esteem and self-defensive strategies, especially in the case of self-handicapping, more research clarifying the type of concrete relationship (i.e., linear, quadratic) that links them is still required. The results of this study suggest that the relationship between selfesteem and self-handicapping (behavioral and claimed) is negative and well described by a linear trend, although it is necessary to take into account the interaction of this linear model with gender (especially in the case of behavioral self-handicapping). However, the relationship between self-esteem and defensive pessimism for women is better described by a quadratic model, but this is not true for men, where the relationship is linear and negative (again, the gender factor acts as a moderator variable). Regarding self-handicapping, our results show that students with low self-esteem are significantly more likely to use this tactics. This finding partially coincides with our initial hypothesis (based on the results of previous investigation). Although it was confirmed that lower selfesteem was related to higher claimed self-handicapping, both by women and men, this did not occur for behavioral self-handicapping in women because, in this case, the relationship between the two variables seems to be of a more quadratic nature. However, differences between men and women were also observed in the use of behavioral selfhandicapping when self-esteem levels are low or high: when they are
Fig. 1. Relationship between behavioral self-handicapping and self-esteem by gender.
240
M.M. Ferradás et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 236–241
Fig. 2. Data and predictions of defensive pessimism for values of self-esteem in women (left graph) and men (right graph).
low, women use more behavioral self-handicapping than men, whereas the situation is reversed when self-esteem is high. This seems to indicate that low self-esteem makes students particularly vulnerable to self-handicapping, as suggested in other works (e.g., Coudevylle et al., 2011; Finez & Sherman, 2012; Pulford et al., 2005; Rodríguez et al., 2004), and this is especially true for women, as suggested in our study. In terms of defensive pessimism, the results of this study are consistent with previous research findings that show that defensive pessimists' self-esteem is far from high or, at least, is not as high as that of the strategic optimists (see Eronen et al., 1998; Norem, 2002). However, our data also suggest that the relationship between self-esteem and defensive pessimism is different for men and women, both at the level of strategy use and the type of relationship. Thus, when self-esteem is particularly low, women use defensive pessimism less than men, whereas when self-esteem is particularly high, women use it more than men. Assuming that students who fail academically have more doubts regarding their personal worth (Covington, 1992), the history of poor academic performance that often accompanies self-handicappers (e.g., Zuckerman, Kieffer, & Knee, 1998) justifies, at least in part, their low self-appraisals and, consequently, the need to protect themselves from a potential new disappointment through self-handicapping strategies. However, this poor performance does not seem to be prototypical of defensive pessimistic students. This leads us to consider that there are other reasons for defensive pessimists' low self-esteem that are different from those of the self-handicappers. Norem (2002) considered that defensive pessimists' negative self-thoughts are of a strategic nature and contribute to their achieving a good performance. This hypothesis agrees with the idea that defensive pessimists' self-esteem, rather than being permanently low, fluctuates (e.g., Norem & Burdzovic, 2007; Yamawaki et al., 2004), increasing when they are successful and decreasing when they must face a new challenge. The transversal nature of the research design carried out does not allow us to analyze the extent to which the use of their respective strategies involves changes in the self-esteem of self-handicappers and defensive pessimists, which is an obvious limitation of our work. Future studies could therefore analyze this issue by means of longitudinal or repeated measures designs. The results of the present investigation do not allow us to determine whether students with low self-esteem use selfhandicapping for self-protection, as some previous studies have suggested (e.g., Tice, 1991). The use of self-report data is also an important limitation. Thus, this data collection procedure does not allow us to
accurately determine cases in which students who admit using claimed self-handicapping also use behavioral self-handicapping. Another limitation is the sample composition because the investigation was carried out only with students studying Educational Sciences and Health Sciences. The clear preponderance of female students in these degrees could interfere with the results, an especially important issue when considering the abundant preliminary research associating gender with the differential use of self-protective strategies. Our data are consistent with this assumption because, when controlling for the effect of gender, we found that this variable is significantly related to such tactics. Hence, we must be cautious about generalizing the results to the entire university population. Despite these limitations, the findings of this research have important theoretical and psychoeducational implications. Regarding theoretical connotations, our research data suggest that the relationship between self-esteem and self-protective strategies (self-handicapping and defensive pessimism) is different depending on the type of strategy and gender. Regarding education, it is recommended to intervene on the factors of the teaching-learning process that promote or strengthen students' low self-appraisals. In this regard, we agree with Thompson (1994) on the suitability of educational interventions aimed at reducing evaluative threat and student's uncertain control. References Arkin, R. M., & Baumgardner, A. (1985). Self-handicapping. In J. H. Harvey, & G. Weary (Eds.), Attribution: Basic issues and applications (pp. 169–202). New York: Academic Press. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Coudevylle, G. R., Gernigon, C., & Martin Ginis, K. A. (2011). Self-esteem, self-confidence, anxiety, and claimed self-handicapping: a mediational analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 670–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.05.008. Coudevylle, G. R., Martin Ginis, K. A., & Famose, J. P. (2008). Determinants of selfhandicapping strategies in sport and their effects on athletic performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 36, 391–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2008.36.3.391. Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press. Eronen, S., Nurmi, J., & Salmela-Aro, K. (1998). Optimistic, defensive pessimistic, impulsive, and self-handicapping strategies in university environments. Learning and Instruction, 8, 159–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(97)00015–7. Finez, L., & Sherman, D. K. (2012). Train in vain: the role of the self in claimed selfhandicapping strategies. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 600–620. Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock, & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural Equation Modeling. A Second Course (pp. 269–314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
M.M. Ferradás et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 88 (2016) 236–241 Hirt, E. R., Deppe, R. K., & Gordon, L. J. (1991). Self-reported versus behavioral selfhandicapping: empirical evidence for a theoretical distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 981–991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.6. 981. Kim, H., Lee, K., & Hong, Y. (2012). Claiming the validity of negative in-group stereotypes when foreseeing a challenge: a self-handicapping account. Self and Identity, 11, 285–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.561560. Lim, L. (2009). A two-factor model of defensive pessimism and its relations with achievement motives. Journal of Psychology, 143, 318–336. http://dx.doi.org/10. 3200/JRLP.143.3.318-336. Martin, A. J. (1998). Self-handicapping and Defensive Pessimism: Predictors and Consequences from a Self-worth Motivation Perspective. (Doctoral dissertation, Western Sidney). Retrieved from http://researchdirect.uws.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A587. 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 of Educational Psychology, 93, 87–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00220663.93.1.87. Martin, K. A., & Brawley, L. R. (2002). Self-handicapping in physical achievement settings: the contributions of self-esteem and self-efficacy. Self and Identity, 1, 337–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860290106814. McCrea, S. M., Hirt, E. R., & Milner, B. J. (2008). She works hard for the money: valuing effort underlies gender differences in behavioral self-handicapping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 292–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007. 05.006. Norem, J. K. (2002). The Positive Power of Negative Thinking: Using Defensive Pessimism to Harness Anxiety and Perform at Your Peak. New York: Basic Books. Norem, J. K. (2009). Psychological Defensiveness: Repression, Blunting, and Defensive Pessimism. In M. R. Leary, & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 480–494). New York: Guilford Press. Norem, J. K., & Burdzovic, J. (2007). Understanding Journeys: Individual Growth Analysis as a Tool for Studying Individual Differences in Change Over Time. In A. D. Ong, & M. V. Dulmen (Eds.), Handbook of Methods in Positive Psychology (pp. 477–486). London: Oxford University Press. Pulford, B. D., Johnson, A., & Awaida, M. (2005). A cross-cultural study of predictors of self-handicapping in university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 727–737. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.008.
241
Rhodewalt, F., & Hill, S. (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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1604_1. Rodríguez, S., Cabanach, R. G., Valle, A., Núñez, J. C., & González-Pienda, J. A. (2004). Diferencias en el uso de self-handicapping y pesimismo defensivo y sus relaciones con las metas de logro, la autoestima y las estrategias de autorregulación [Differences in use of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism and their relation with achievement goals, self-esteem, and self-regulation strategies]. Psicothema, 16, 625–631. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. SAS Institute, Inc. (2014). SAS/STAT® 13.1 User's Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc. Tandler, S., Schwinger, M., Kamisnki, K., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2014). Self-affirmation buffers claimed self-handicapping? A test of contextual and individual moderators. Psychology, 5, 321–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.55042. Thompson, T. (1994). Self-worth protection: Review and implications for the classroom. Educational Review, 46(3), 259–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013191940460304. 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, 711–725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.711. Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1990). Self-esteem, self-handicapping, and selfpresentation: the strategy of inadequate practice. Journal of Personality, 58, 443–464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00237.x. Valle, A., Cabanach, R. G., Rodríguez, S., Núñez, J. C., & González-Pienda, J. A. (2005). Selfworth protection strategies in higher educational students: exploring a model of predictors and consequences. In R. Nata (Ed.), New directions in higher education (pp. 99–126). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Vázquez, A. J., Jiménez, R., & Vázquez-Morejón, R. (2004). Escala de autoestima de Rosenberg: fiabilidad y validez en población clínica española [Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Reliability and validity in a Spanish clinical sample]. Apuntes de Psicología, 22, 247–255. Yamawaki, N., Tschanz, B. T., & Feick, D. L. (2004). Defensive pessimism, self-esteem instability and goal strivings. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 233–249. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/02699930341000004. Zuckerman, M., Kieffer, S. C., & Knee, C. R. (1998). Consequences of self-handicapping: effects on coping, academic performance, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1619–1628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.6.1619.