Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The impact of hypothetical explanations on performance : generalizability and the mediating effects… Fairey, Patricia Jean 1986

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A8 F34.pdf [ 4.46MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096979.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096979-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096979-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096979-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096979-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096979-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096979-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096979-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096979.ris

Full Text

THE IMPACT OF HYPOTHETICAL EXPLANATIONS ON PERFORMANCE: GENERALIZABILITY AND THE MEDIATING EFFECTS OF SELF-ESTEEM By PATRICIA JEAN FAIREY B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1982 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Psychology) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA / June 1986 / (c) P a t r i c i a Jean F a i r e y , 1986 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e h e a d o f my d e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t o f ^SJCHoLO & j The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 2075 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a V6T 1W5 D a t e IJuJy ? /Y&> 7Q^ i i ABSTRACT This study examined the extent to which the e f f e c t s of generating hypothetical success/failure explanations and i n i t i a l expectations would generalize and a f f e c t performance on subsequent unexplained tasks. Two types of generalization were examined; the extent to which explanation and i n i t i a l expectation e f f e c t s would generalize to a related, but unexplained, task performed immediately a f t e r explanations and expectations had been e l i c i t e d ; and the extent to which the explanation and i n i t i a l expectation e f f e c t s would generalize to performance on a subsequent (second) task despite the intervention of actual performance experience on a f i r s t task. The potential moderating e f f e c t s of self-esteem on the processes described above were also examined. A hypothetical explanation task was used to make success- or f a i l u r e - r e l a t e d cognitions d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e f o r 60 high self-esteem (HSE) and 60 low self-esteem (LSE) subjects. Subjects wrote an explanation for either a hypothetical f a i l u r e or success, or wrote no explanation (control) regarding performance on the Remote Associate Test (RAT). After stating performance expectancies for the RAT, half of the subjects worked on t h i s task while the other half worked on the related anagram task. A l l subjects then stated performance expectancies for a word generation task and worked on t h i s task. The r e s u l t s provided support f o r the i i i f i r s t type of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n ; the h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n m a n i p u l a t i o n ( i n c o n j u n c t i o n with self-esteem) a f f e c t e d performance on the f i r s t t ask r e g a r d l e s s of whether the task was the e x p l a i n e d (RAT) or the r e l a t e d (anagram) t a s k . Success e x p l a n a t i o n s i n c r e a s e d the f i r s t - t a s k performance of both HSE and LSE s u b j e c t s , whereas f a i l u r e e x p l a n a t i o n s only decreased the performance of LSE s u b j e c t s . The r e s u l t s a l s o i n d i c a t e d , however, t h a t the e x p l a n a t i o n m a n i p u l a t i o n d i d not g e n e r a l i z e over time and a f f e c t performance on the subsequent (second) t a s k . The r e s u l t s are d i s c u s s e d i n terms of c u r r e n t s e l f - e s t e e m theory and the c o g n i t i v e processes a s s o c i a t e d with g e n e r a t i n g c a u s a l s c e n a r i o s f o r success and f a i l u r e , e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS A b s t r a c t i i L i s t of Tables v i i L i s t o f F i g u r e s v i i i Acknowledgements i x I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 A v a i l a b i l i t y Mechanism 3 Self-Judgments versus S o c i a l Judgments 9 Sherman e t a l . (Study 1) 11 Campbell and F a i r e y (19S5) 12 G e n e r a l i z a t i o n 16 Sherman e t a l . (Study 2) 16 Overview of the Present Study 20 Hypotheses 21 Method 23 Design 23 Subject S e l e c t i o n 23 Procedure 23 Dependent Measures 26 C h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l Reasons 27 A b i l i t y 27 C h r o n i c A f f e c t i v e Reactions 28 N o n c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l Reasons 28 V Chance 28 M o t i v a t i o n 28 Temporary S i t u a t i o n a l -. . 28 R e s u l t s 30 I n i t i a l E x p e c t a t i o n Ratings 30 Performance on the F i r s t Task 31 E x p e c t a t i o n Ratings f o r the Second Task 38 Performance on the Second Task . .. 41 A t t e n u a t i o n of the Experimental V a r i a b l e s over Time 42 Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Responses 46 F i r s t Task Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 46 Post-Experimental Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 47 Content of the E x p l a n a t i o n s 49 C o r r e l a t i o n a l Analyses 52 E x p e c t a t i o n s and E x p l a n a t i o n Content 52 C o r r e l a t i o n s Among the Dependent V a r i a b l e s 53 C o r r e l a t i o n s with F u l l - S c a l e Self-esteem Scores 55 D i s c u s s i o n 59 R e p l i c a t i o n s of P r e v i o u s R e s u l t s 59 E x p l a n a t i o n E f f e c t s on Performance 58 Process 60 Self-Esteem 61 G e n e r a l i z a t i o n 62 Immediate Unexplained Task 62 v i Subsequent Task 63 A d d i t i o n a l Self-Esteem E f f e c t s 68 Future D i r e c t i o n s 72 References 75 Footnotes 85 Appendix A - Word Tasks 86 Appendix B - P e r s o n a l i t y C h e c k l i s t 93 Appendix C - E x p l a n a t i o n Tasks 95 Appendix D - E x p e c t a t i o n S c a l e 100 Appendix E - Task Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s 102 Appendix F - Post-Experimental Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 107 Appendix G - Consent and D e b r i e f i n g Forms I l l Appendix H - Summary of the Analyses 115 v i i LIST OF TABLES 1. Content of E x p l a n a t i o n s by E x p l a n a t i o n Type and Self-esteem 51 2. C o r r e l a t i o n s of Dependent Measures with Self-esteem Within/Across E x p l a n a t i o n C o n d i t i o n 54 3. C o r r e l a t i o n s Among the Dependent Measures Within/Across E x p l a n a t i o n C o n d i t i o n 56 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES 1. Mean I n i t i a l Task Expectancy Rati n g as a F u n c t i o n of E x p l a n a t i o n C o n d i t i o n and Self-Esteem 32 2. Mean F i r s t Task Performance as a F u n c t i o n of E x p l a n a t i o n C o n d i t i o n and Self-esteem 35 3. Mean Second Task Expectancy Rati n g as a Fu n c t i o n of E x p l a n a t i o n C o n d i t i o n and Self-Esteem 39 4. Mean Second Task Performance as a F u n c t i o n of E x p l a n a t i o n C o n d i t i o n and Self-esteem 43 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to express my a p p r e c i a t i o n t o the f o l l o w i n g people f o r t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n s which f a c i l i t a t e d the completion of t h i s t h e s i s . F i r s t , and foremost, I would l i k e t o thank my s u p e r v i s o r . Dr. J e n n i f e r Campbell, f o r the s t r o n g academic and emotional support t h a t she so generously p r o v i d e d throughout t h i s p r o j e c t . I would a l s o l i k e t o thank my committee members. Dr. P h i l Smith and Dr. Del Paulhus, f o r t h e i r i n s i g h t f u l comments and h e l p f u l s u g g e s t i o n s . I a l s o wish t o express my g r a t i t u d e t o my f a m i l y , f r i e n d s , and f e l l o w graduate students f o r t h e i r encouragement and moral support when I needed i t moat. 1 Int.roduct.ion People are a c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s o r s ; t h a t i s , they do not simply encode s o c i a l behavior, but attempt to e x p l a i n i t i n order to develop an o r g a n i z e d , meaningful, and p r e d i c t a b l e view of t h e i r world (Heider, 1958; T e t l o c k & L e v i , 1982). Becauae people have a p e r v a s i v e tendency to c o n a t r u c t cauaal e x p l a n a t i o n a and because, i n doing so, they o f t e n r e l y on the same p r i n c i p l e s or r u l e s of i n f e r e n c e used by s c i e n t i s t s , they have been c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s e v e r a l t h e o r i s t s as " i n t u i t i v e s c i e n t i s t s " or " i n t u i t i v e p s y c h o l o g i s t s " ( N i s b e t t & Ross, 1980; Ross, 1977). Given t h i s p r e v a s i v e tendency towards c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n , i t i s perhaps not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t " r e a l " p s y c h o l o g i s t s have engaged i n a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of r e s e a r c h examining e x p l a n a t i o n processes. E a r l y r e s e a r c h on e x p l a n a t i o n processes focused p r i m a r i l y on e x p l i c a t i n g the i n f e r e n t i a l r u l e s or s t r a t e g i e s t h a t people use i n a r r i v i n g a t c a u s a l judgments (Jones & Davis, 1965; K e l l e y , 1967; Weiner, 1974). Subsequent theory and r e s e a r c h expanded t h i s focus t o i n c l u d e (a) the r o l e t h a t c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n s p l a y i n m a i n t a i n i n g and changing pe r s o n a l b e l i e f s and (b) the consequences t h a t such e x p l a n a t i o n s and r e s u l t i n g i n f e r e n c e s have on subsequent behavior. The present paper i s concerned with both of these l a t t e r i s s u e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the e f f e c t s of e x p l a n a t i o n processes on p e r s o n a l b e l i e f s ( e x p e c t a t i o n s ) and subsequent behavior (performance) are examined i n the context of the achievement domain. Although e x p l a n a t i o n processes have been i m p l i c a t e d i n the 2 b e l i e f perseverance (e.g., Anderson, Lepper, & Ross, 1980; Lord, Ross, Lepper, 1979; Ross & Lepper, 1980; Ross, Lepper, & Hubbard; 1975) and the h i n d s i g h t b i a s l i t e r a t u r e s (e.g., F i s c h h o f f , 1975, 1977; F i s c h h o f f & Beyth, 1975), the e f f e c t s o f gen e r a t i n g e x p l a n a t i o n s on subsequent b e l i e f s are perhaps best e x e m p l i f i e d by r e s e a r c h i n the " h y p o t h e t i c a l " e x p l a n a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e . T h i s l i t e r a t u r e has demonstrated t h a t simply g e n e r a t i n g c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n s , even h y p o t h e t i c a l ones, can a l t e r b e l i e f s i n the d i r e c t i o n o f the e x p l a n a t i o n . For example, i t has been shown t h a t g e n e r a t i n g a c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n f o r a p u r e l y h y p o t h e t i c a l , but p o s s i b l e , outcome i n c r e a s e s the p e r c e i v e d l i k e l i h o o d of t h a t outcome (e.g., C a r r o l l , 1978; Ross, Lepper, Str a c k , & Steinmetz, 1977; Sherman, Zehner, Johnson, & H i r t , 1983). Ross e t a l . (1977) requested s u b j e c t s f i r s t t o read i d e n t i c a l background i n f o r m a t i o n about a t a r g e t , and then t o w r i t e an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r some p o s s i b l e , but h y p o t h e t i c a l , f u t u r e event i n the t a r g e t ' s l i f e . S u b j e c t s ' s u b j e c t i v e l i k e l i h o o d estimates ( s o c i a l judgments) were g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d by the e x p l a n a t i o n they had generated; the events t h a t had been e x p l a i n e d were judged as more l i k e l y t o a c t u a l l y occur than other p o s s i b l e , but unexplained, events. A s i m i l a r e f f e c t has been demonstrated with r e s p e c t t o people's b e l i e f s about the r e l a t i o n s h i p between v a r i a b l e s i n the s o c i a l environment ( s o c i a l t h e o r i e s ) . Anderson and S e c h l e r (1986) asked s u b j e c t s t o c r e a t e c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r h y p o t h e t i c a l outcomes of ( p u r p o r t e d l y a u t h e n t i c ) s c i e n t i f i c s t u d i e s . For example, some s u b j e c t s were given a d e s c r i p t i o n o f 3 the method s e c t i o n of a " r e c e n t p s y c h o l o g i c a l study" which examined r i s k t a k i n g and f i r e f i g h t i n g performance. A f t e r making p r e d i c t i o n s about the a c t u a l outcome of the study ( i . e . , d i d high r i s k t a k e r s make good/bad f i r e f i g h t e r s ) , s u b j e c t s were asked to e x p l a i n e i t h e r a p o s i t i v e or negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between the f i r e f i g h t e r s ' performance and p r e f e r e n c e f o r r i s k t a k i n g . F i n a l l y , s u b j e c t s p r e d i c t e d whether r i s k y people would perform b e t t e r or worse as f i r e f i g h t e r s . Anderson and S e c h l e r r e p o r t e d t h a t s u b j e c t s ' s o c i a l t h e o r i e s changed i n the d i r e c t i o n of the just-completed e x p l a n a t i o n . S u b j e c t s who e x p l a i n e d the high r i s k / g o o d performance r e l a t i o n s h i p came to b e l i e v e i n a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r i s k y n e s s and good f i r e f i g h t e r performance, and s u b j e c t s who e x p l a i n e d the high r i s k / b a d performance r e l a t i o n s h i p came t o b e l i e v e t h a t r i s k y people performed badly as f i r e f i g h t e r s . A v a i l a b i l i t y Mechanism In the h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e , as w e l l as i n the b e l i e f perseverance and h i n d s i g h t b i a s l i t e r a t u r e s , the mechanism presumed t o u n d e r l i e the e f f e c t s of c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n s on subsequent b e l i e f s i s an a v a i l a b i l i t y mechanism (Kahneman & Tversky, 1973). The a v a i l a b i l i t y h e u r i s t i c , one of the c o g n i t i v e h e u r i s t i c s people u t i l i z e when making judgments under u n c e r t a i n t y , holds t h a t c o g n i t i v e a v a i l a b i l i t y , the ease with which an event can be c o n s t r u c t e d , i s one b a s i s f o r the judgment of the l i k e l i h o o d o f an event. Thus, the more c o g n i t i v e l y a v a i l a b l e an outcome, the g r e a t e r the p e r c e p t i o n t h a t i t i s a l i k e l y outcome. 4 Within the l a s t two decades, numerous s t u d i e s have provided s t r o n g evidence t h a t human p r o b a b i l i t y judgments are a f f e c t e d by the d i f f e r e n t i a l a v a i l a b i l i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n i n memory. The i n f l u e n c e of a v a i l a b i l i t y f a c t o r s i n the area of s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n i s w e l l documented ( T a y l o r & F i s k e , 1978). For example, H i g g i n s , Rholes, and Jones (1977) and S r u l l and Wyer (1979) demonstrated t h a t impressions about a t a r g e t person are g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d i f , p r i o r t o the r e c e i p t of i n f o r m a t i o n about the t a r g e t , d i f f e r e n t t r a i t concepts are primed i n memory. I t has a l s o been found t h a t when s u b j e c t s are exposed to i d e n t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n about a t a r g e t under the i n f l u e n c e o f d i f f e r e n t s e t s , schemas, or s t e r e o t y p e s the d i f f e r e n t i a l a v a i l a b i l i t y of t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i n memory and the s u b j e c t s ' subsequent judgments about the t a r g e t are r e l i a b l y a f f e c t e d (Cohen, 1981; Snyder & Cantor, 1979; Snyder & Uranowitz, 1978). Generating c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r d i f f e r e n t outcomes a l s o seems to i n f l u e n c e judgments by making s e l e c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n more a v a i l a b l e i n memory. Ross e t a l . (1977) suggest t h a t generating a c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n f o r a p o t e n t i a l outcome makes events i n d i c a t i v e of t h a t outcome more r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e i n memory and t h e r e f o r e a f f e c t s s u b j e c t s judgments about the l i k e l i h o o d o f the e x p l a i n e d outcome. Anderson and S e c h l e r (1986) concluded t h a t the e x p l a n a t i o n e f f e c t on s u b j e c t s ' judgments about s o c i a l t h e o r i e s was due t o t h e i r i n a b i l i t y or u n w i l l i n g n e s s to see t h a t there were e q u a l l y p l a u s i b l e c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r the o p p o s i t e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s . S u b j e c t s appeared to depend on the a v a i l a b l e 5 p l a u s i b l e c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n they had w r i t t e n and f a i l e d t o p e r c e i v e t h a t the a v a i l a b i l i t y of t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n was not n e c e s s a r i l y r e l a t e d to i t s c o r r e c t n e s s . Sherman, Skov, H e r v i t z , & Stock (1981) have proposed t h a t a c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n task works much l i k e a priming procedure ( S r u l l & Wyer, 1979) i n making p a r t i c u l a r concepts more a v a i l a b l e i n memory and t h a t the subsequent judgments ( i . e . , e x p e c t a n c i e s ) s u b j e c t s make are then based upon the a v a i l a b l e concepts. When s u b j e c t s e x p l a i n a h y p o t h e t i c a l outcome, i n f o r m a t i o n congruent with t h a t outcome i s made d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e and subsequent judgments are s t r o n g l y a f f e c t e d because they are based on the i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e i n memory. Sherman e t a l . (1983) r e p o r t e d more d i r e c t evidence f o r the r o l e of an a v a i l a b i l i t y mechanism i n the h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n paradigm. They found t h a t s u b j e c t s ' p r o b a b i l i t y judgments were h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d with the i n f o r m a t i o n they c o u l d r e c a l l . Thus, i t appears t h a t h y p o t h e t i c a l c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n s can a l t e r people's b e l i e f s about o t h e r s ( t h e i r s o c i a l judgments) and t h e i r b e l i e f s about r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s ( s o c i a l t h e o r i e s ) by making d i f f e r e n t s e t s of c o g n i t i o n s more or l e s s a v a i l a b l e i n memory. I t has a l s o been demonstrated t h a t g e n e r a t i n g h y p o t h e t i c a l c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n s , as w e l l as other a v a i l a b i l i t y m a n i p u l a t i o n s , can a l t e r people's b e l i e f s about themselves ( s e l f - j u d g m e n t s ) . S a l a n c i k and Conway (1975) demonstrated t h a t s u b j e c t s ' s e l f - i m p r e s s i o n s of t h e i r r e l i g i o u s i t y c o u l d be 6 a l t e r e d by making c e r t a i n r e l i g i o u s a s p e c t s of one's behavior d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e ( s a l i e n t ) . They made e i t h e r past a n t i r e l i g i o u s or p r o r e l i g i o u s behavior s a l i e n t f o r s u b j e c t s by s y s t e m a t i c a l l y p a i r i n g e i t h e r the adverbs "on o c c a s i o n " or " f r e q u e n t l y " with statements about r e l i g i o u s behavior. They assumed t h a t i f the adverb "on o c c a s i o n " was used i n a sentence, s u b j e c t s would be more l i k e l y t o endorse the statement as t r u e f o r themselves than i f the adverb " f r e q u e n t l y " was used. T h e r e f o r e , t o make p r o r e l i g i o u s i n f o r m a t i o n s a l i e n t t o s u b j e c t s , they p a i r e d the m a j o r i t y of p r o r e l i g i o u s behavior statements with the adverb "on o c c a s i o n " and the m a j o r i t y of a n t i r e l i g i o u s behavior statements with " f r e q u e n t l y " . The exact o p p o s i t e p a i r i n g was done t o make a n t i r e l i g i o u s i n f o r m a t i o n s a l i e n t t o s u b j e c t s . They then asked s u b j e c t s t o read the s e r i e s of statements and i n d i c a t e whether the statements of r e l i g i o u s behavior a p p l i e d to them or not. The r e s u l t was th a t s u b j e c t s ' impressions of t h e i r present l e v e l o f r e l i g i o u s i t y were s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by whichever past r e l i g i o u s behavior had been made s a l i e n t . Sherman e t a l . (1981) and Campbell and F a i r e y (1985) r e p o r t e d t h a t a s k i n g s u b j e c t s to w r i t e an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r a pu r e l y h y p o t h e t i c a l success or f a i l u r e outcome on an upcoming task i n f l u e n c e d s u b j e c t s ' e x p e c t a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e i r performance; s u b j e c t s who e x p l a i n e d a h y p o t h e t i c a l f a i l u r e expected t o perform worse and s u b j e c t s who e x p l a i n e d a h y p o t h e t i c a l success expected t o perform b e t t e r than the no-explanation c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . 7 Sherman, C i a l d i n i , Schwartzmann, & Reynolds (1985) and Gregory, C i a l d i n i , & Carpenter (1982) have shown t h a t simply imagining h y p o t h e t i c a l f u t u r e events, as w e l l as e x p l a i n i n g them, can render those events s u b j e c t i v e l y more l i k e l y . Sherman et a l . (1985) asked s u b j e c t s t o imagine c o n t r a c t i n g a d i s e a s e t h a t had e i t h e r easy-to-imagine or d i f f i c u l t - t o - i m a g i n e symptoms. S u b j e c t s then r a t e d the ease of imagining the symptoms and the l i k e l i h o o d of c o n t r a c t i n g the d i s e a s e . Sherman et a l . r e p o r t e d a main e f f e c t f o r symptom a c c e s s i b i l i t y ( a v a i l a b i l i t y ) ; s u b j e c t s asked to imagine c o n t r a c t i n g a d i s e a s e judged themselves as more l i k e l y t o c o n t r a c t the di s e a s e i f the symptoms of the d i s e a s e were easy-to-imagine than i f they were d i f f i c u l t - t o - i m a g i n e . The r e s u l t s a l s o showed t h a t judgments about the ease or d i f f i c u l t y of imagining the symptoms p a r a l l e l e d judgments of how l i k e l y i t was to c o n t r a c t the d i s e a s e ; s u b j e c t s who r a t e d the symptoms as easy-to-imagine a l s o judged the d i s e a s e as more l i k e l y t o occur; and those who had more d i f f i c u l t y imagining the symptoms judged i t as l e s s l i k e l y to occur. Sherman e t a l . (1985) suggest t h a t i f an outcome i s easy t o imagine, or e x p l a i n , i t w i l l be more r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e i n memory and thus judged t o be more l i k e l y to occur. They a l s o argue t h a t the a v a i l a b i l t y of an event should i n c r e a s e i f i t has r e c e n t l y been imagined, p r e d i c t e d , or e x p l a i n e d . Gregory e t a l . (1982) asked s u b j e c t s t o imagine being a r r e s t e d f o r a crime or winning a c o n t e s t . In both i n s t a n c e s , s u b j e c t s ' s u b j e c t i v e l i k e l i h o o d e s t i m a t e s were increased by the im a g i n a t i o n task; they b e l i e v e d t h a t the imagined event was more 8 l i k e l y to occur t o them i n the f u t u r e . Gregory e t a l . (1982) suggest two p o s s i b l e ways by which im a g i n a t i o n and/or e x p l a n a t i o n procedures c o u l d l e a d t o the heightened a v a i l a b i l i t y of an outcome and thus to an i n c r e a s e i n i t s p e r c e i v e d l i k e l i h o o d . F i r s t , a person who has r e c e n t l y imagined and/or e x p l a i n e d an event has c r e a t e d a mental image of t h a t event; any subsequent contemplation of the event w i l l l e a d to the same image being r e c r e a t e d because t h i s image has a l r e a d y been formed and i s t h e r e f o r e more r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e i n memory (Sherman e t a l . , 1985). Second, an i n i t i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of an event through an e x p l a n a t i o n or i m a g i n a t i o n task may c r e a t e a c o g n i t i v e s e t t h a t i m p a i r s one's a b i l i t y and/or m o t i v a t i o n to view the event i n a l t e r n a t e ways. For example, Bruner and P o t t e r (1964) demonstrated t h a t the c r e a t i o n of a s p e c i f i c s c e n a r i o or s c r i p t h i n d e r s f u t u r e t h i n k i n g and renders the g e n e r a t i o n of other s c e n a r i o s more d i f f i c u l t . In a d d i t i o n , Shaklee and F i s c h h o f f (1982) r e p o r t e d t h a t once s u b j e c t s have generated a p l a u s i b l e cause f o r an outcome, they do not c o n t i n u e to search f o r other p o s s i b l e causes. Even more s t r i k i n g , however, i s evidence t h a t an a v a i l a b i l i t y m a nipulation can i n f l u e n c e not only subsequent b e l i e f s but a l s o subsequent behavior. For example, Gregory e t a l . (1982) r e p o r t e d t h a t an i m a g i n a t i o n task c o u l d i n f l u e n c e s u b j e c t s ' a c t u a l subsequent compliance behavior as w e l l as t h e i r p r o b a b i l i t y judgments. Homeowners who imagined watching and e n j o y i n g a c a b l e t e l e v i s i o n s e r v i c e were more l i k e l y to s u b s c r i b e t o such a s e r v i c e when giv e n the chance to a c t u a l l y do 9 so. In a d d i t i o n , the Sherman et a l . (1981) and Campbell and F a i r e y (1985) s t u d i e s showed t h a t g e n e r a t i n g an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r a p u r e l y h y p o t h e t i c a l success or f a i l u r e outcome not only i n f l u e n c e d s u b j e c t s ' e x p e c t a t i o n s (self-judgments) r e g a r d i n g t h e i r performance, but a l s o a f f e c t e d t h e i r a c t u a l subsequent performance i f e x p e c t a t i o n s had been e l i c i t e d . I f performance ex p e c t a t i o n s were s t a t e d , s u b j e c t s who e x p l a i n e d a h y p o t h e t i c a l success expected t o perform b e t t e r , and a c t u a l l y d i d perform b e t t e r ; those who e x p l a i n e d a f a i l u r e expected t o perform worse, and a c t u a l l y d i d worse, than c o n t r o l (no-explanation) s u b j e c t s . To summarize, the s t u d i e s reviewed above i n d i c a t e that (a) a h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n task can a f f e c t the type and amount of inform a t i o n t h a t i s a v a i l a b l e i n memory, (b) d i f f e r e n t i a l a v a i l a b i l i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n can i n t u r n a f f e c t subsequent judgments ( b e l i e f s ) , and (c) judgments can i n t u r n a f f e c t subsequent behavior. While the evidence shows t h a t an a v a i l a b i l i t y m a nipulation i n f l u e n c e s people's b e l i e f s and behaviors, t h e r e are some important d i f f e r e n c e s between s o c i a l judgments, s o c i a l t h e o r i e s , and self-judgments t h a t should be noted because they may a f f e c t the degree of i n f l u e n c e that an a v a i l a b i l t i y m a nipulation w i l l have. Self-Judgments versus S o c i a l Judgments Although t h e r e i s evidence t h a t a v a i l a b i l i t y f a c t o r s can i n f l u e n c e self-judgments as we l l as s o c i a l judgments (e.g., Jennings, Lepper, & Ross, 1981; S a l a n c i k & Conway, 1975; Sherman et a l . , 1981), t h e r e are some major d i f f e r e n c e s between s o c i a l and s e l f judgment and these d i f f e r e n c e s ( o u t l i n e d below) would 10 suggest t h a t <a) a v a i l a b i l i t y m anipulations would g e n e r a l l y have l e s s impact on self-judgments than on s o c i a l judgments and (b) i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s would play a g r e a t e r r o l e i n mediating the e f f e c t s of a v a i l a b i l i t y on self-judgments than on s o c i a l judgments. F i r s t , i n d i v i d u a l s are more l i k e l y t o have s t r o n g e r i n i t i a l b e l i e f s about themselves than about o t h e r s ( p a r t i c u l a r l y the " a r t i f i c i a l " o t h e r s used i n most s o c i a l judgment s t u d i e s ) . I n d i v i d u a l s ' impressions about themselves are based on more i n f o r m a t i o n and are b e t t e r organized and i n t e g r a t e d than t h e i r b e l i e f s about o t h e r s (Rogers, 1981). In a d d i t i o n , r e s e a r c h on the s e l f - c o n c e p t has demonstrated t h a t people seek c o n s i s t e n c y and s t a b i l i t y of the s e l f ; they a c t i v e l y r e s i s t and/or a v o i d i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s incongruent with t h e i r i n i t i a l s e l f p e r c e p t i o n s (e.g., Greenwald, 1980; Markus, 1977; Swann & Read, 1981; Teaser & Campbell, 1983). To the extent people hold s t r o n g i n i t i a l b e l i e f s , an a v a i l a b i l i t y manipulation should be l e s s e f f e c t i v e i n a l t e r i n g these b e l i e f s . For example, Anderson and S e c h l e r (1986) r e p o r t e d t h a t the e f f e c t s of a h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n task were weaker i f the judgment domain was one i n which the i n d i v i d u a l held s t r o n g i n i t i a l b e l i e f s . A second major d i f f e r e n c e has t o do with the content of the p r i o r i n f o r m a t i o n base. In s o c i a l impression s t u d i e s , i d e n t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n about an a r t i f i c i a l t a r g e t other i s given to a l l s u b j e c t s . The a v a i l a b i l i t y m anipulation t h e r e f o r e " o p e r a t e s " on an e q u i v a l e n t s e t of p o s s i b l e c o g n i t i o n s . In c o n t r a s t , an a v a i l a b i l i t y m anipulation d e a l i n g with s e l f - i m p r e s s i o n s 11 " o p e r a t e s " on an i d i o s y n c r a t i c i n f o r m a t i o n base ( i . e . , the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p r e v i o u s b e h a v i o r s , f e e l i n g s , thoughts, experiences, b e l i e f s , e t c . ) . Because i n d i v i d u a l i n f o r m a t i o n p o o l s w i l l d i f f e r with r e s p e c t to the r e l a t i v e frequency and/or s t r e n g t h of the c o g n i t i o n s t a r g e t e d f o r a v a i l a b i l i t y , the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the manipulation w i l l vary a c r o s s s u b j e c t s . The e f f e c t s of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c o n t e x t of a h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n paradigm i s i l l u s t r a t e d by c o n t r a s t i n g the r e s u l t s of the Sherman e t a l . (1981) study with the Campbell and F a i r e y (1985) study. These two s t u d i e s are reviewed i n d e t a i l below s i n c e both the procedures they used and t h e i r r e s u l t s are h i g h l y r e l e v a n t to the present study. Sherman e t a l . (Study 1) S u b j e c t s were informed t h a t they would be t a k i n g an anagram t e s t . P r i o r t o working on the t e s t , experimental s u b j e c t s were asked (a) t o imagine t h a t they had a l r e a d y taken the t e s t and had performed e i t h e r very w e l l or very p o o r l y and (b) to w r i t e an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s p u r e l y h y p o t h e t i c a l outcome. C o n t r o l s u b j e c t s n e i t h e r imagined nor e x p l a i n e d any outcome. H a l f of the s u b j e c t s i n each e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n ( s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e / c o n t r o l ) then s t a t e d t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e i r performance on the upcoming t e s t . F i n a l l y , a l l s u b j e c t s were given 20 minutes to work on a 25-item anagram t e s t . The h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n task i n f l u e n c e d the e x p e c t a t i o n s (self-judgments) of those s u b j e c t s who had been asked t o s t a t e e x p e c t a t i o n s ; s u b j e c t s who had e x p l a i n e d a 12 f a i l u r e expected t o perform worse and s u b j e c t s who had e x p l a i n e d a success expected t o perform b e t t e r than c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . Of even g r e a t e r import was the r e s u l t t h a t , i f s u b j e c t s had s t a t e d performance e x p e c t a t i o n s , those who had e x p l a i n e d a h y p o t h e t i c a l s u c c e s s a c t u a l l y performed b e t t e r , and those who had e x p l a i n e d a h y p o t h e t i c a l f a i l u r e a c t u a l l y performed worse than c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . Sherman e t a l . i n t e r p r e t e d these r e s u l t s as support f o r the n o t i o n t h a t the e x p l a n a t i o n task made c a u s a l reasons f o r success or f a i l u r e d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e i n memory. When s u b j e c t s were asked t o s t a t e a c t u a l performance e x p e c t a t i o n s , they searched memory f o r r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s and s e l e c t i v e l y r e t r i e v e d the i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t the e x p l a n a t i o n task had made s a l i e n t ( a v a i l a b l e ) . F i n a l l y , i f the a c t u a l task was entered with f i r m e x p e c t a t i o n s , these e x p e c t a t i o n s e l i c i t e d b ehaviors t h a t confirmed the expected outcome. That i s , e l i c i t i n g performance e x p e c t a n c i e s r e s u l t e d i n a s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g prophecy. Research i n the f i e l d o f s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n has demonstrated a comparable s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g phenomenon with r e s p e c t t o our e x p e c t a t i o n s about the behavior of o t h e r s (e.g., A r c h i b a l d , 1974; R o t t e r , 1954; Rosenthal, 1974; Snyder & Swann, 1978; Snyder, Tanke, & B e r s c h e i d , 1977). Campbell and F a i r e y (1985) Campbell and F a i r e y , u s i n g the same experimental procedures as the Sherman e t a l . study d e s c r i b e d above, examined the p o t e n t i a l mediating r o l e of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - e s t e e m . They noted t h a t t r a i t s e l f - e s t e e m was p o t e n t i a l l y r e l e v a n t i n t h i s c o n t e x t , g i v e n the l a r g e body of l i t e r a t u r e 13 i n d i c a t i n g s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n the i n f l u e n c e of p r i o r success and f a i l u r e outcomes on subsequent e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance (Jones, 1973; Shrauger, 1975). I t i s w e l l documented t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s with low s e l f - e s t e e m (LSE) g e n e r a l l y have lower performance e x p e c t a t i o n s than high s e l f - e s t e e m (HSE) i n d i v i d u a l s (e.g., Coopersmith, 1967; K i e s l e r & B a r a l , 1970; Shrauger, 1972). More important, however, i s evidence t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s who d i f f e r i n se l f - e s t e e m e x p l a i n s u c c e s s versus f a i l u r e i n d i f f e r e n t ways and t h a t these e x p l a n a t o r y s t y l e d i f f e r e n c e s may indeed c r e a t e d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x p e c t a t i o n s and task performance f o l l o w i n g success and f a i l u r e e x p e r i e n c e s . Numerous s t u d i e s have shown t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m and depression are s t r o n g l y l i n k e d t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n explanatory s t y l e f o r negative events (e.g., Anderson, Horowitz, & French, 1983; Feather, 1983; Ickes & Layden, 1978; Peterson & Seligman, 1984); depressed and LSE people w i l l more r e a d i l y and c o n s i s t e n t l y use " c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l " (Janoff-Bulman, 1979) f a c t o r s t o e x p l a i n negative outcomes than nondepressed and HSE people. That i s , LSE people are more l i k e l y t o e x p l a i n negative events using i n t e r n a l , s t a b l e , and g l o b a l reasons. Because d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t r i b u t i o n s g i v e n f o r p r i o r outcomes mediate subsequent e x p e c t a t i o n s and subsequent performance (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Anderson, 1983), Campbell and F a i r e y (1985) p r e d i c t e d t h a t LSE and HSE people would e x h i b i t d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance f o l l o w i n g the g e n e r a t i o n of a f a i l u r e e x p l a n a t i o n ; LSE i n d i v i d u a l s would show lower e x p e c t a n c i e s and more impaired performance than HSE 14 i n d i v i d u a l s (Peterson & Seligman, 1984). They d i d not, however, a n t i c i p a t e any s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n the success or c o n t r o l e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s . They noted t h a t although p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h has c o n s i s t e n t l y obtained s i g n i f i c a n t s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s under f a i l u r e c o n d i t i o n s , success or c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s have g e n e r a l l y not produced r e l i a b l e s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s (e.g., Brockner, 1979; DePaulo, Brown, I s h i i , & F i s h e r , 1981; Diener & Dweck, 1978; Shrauger & Sorman, 1977; Zuckerman, 1979). That i s , they p r e d i c t e d t h a t the e f f e c t s of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - e s t e e m would be asymmetrical a c r o s s success, c o n t r o l , and f a i l u r e c o n d i t i o n s ; s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s would be pronounced and s i g n i f i c a n t i n the f a i l u r e c o n d i t i o n , but not i n the success or c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s . The Campbell and F a i r e y study r e p l i c a t e d the f i n d i n g s of Sherman e t a l . (study 1) with r e s p e c t t o the o v e r a l l e f f e c t s of h y p o t h e t i c a l success and f a i l u r e e x p l a n a t i o n s on e x p e c t a t i o n s and subsequent performance. They a l s o provided support f o r the r o l e of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n mediating the e f f e c t s of the a v a i l a b i l i t y m anipulation. C o n s i s t e n t with the "asymmetry hy p o t h e s i s " , they r e p o r t e d t h a t LSE s u b j e c t s d i s p l a y e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower expectancies and lower performance than HSE s u b j e c t s i n the f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n , but t h e r e were no r e l i a b l e s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x p e c t a n c i e s or performance i n the s u c c e s s or c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s . S t a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y , f o r LSE s u b j e c t s , a success e x p l a n a t i o n i n c r e a s e d e x p e c t a t i o n s and a f a i l u r e e x p l a n a t i o n decreased e x p e c t a t i o n s ; f o r HSE s u b j e c t s a success e x p l a n a t i o n i n c r e a s e d e x p e c t a t i o n s , but a f a i l u r e 15 e x p l a n a t i o n had no impact ( i . e . , t h e i r expectaions were i d e n t i c a l t o those HSE s u b j e c t s who wrote no e x p l a n a t i o n ) . With r e s p e c t t o performance, LSE s u b j e c t s ' performance decreased i f they e x p l a i n e d a f a i l u r e , but e x p l a i n i n g a success i n c r e a s e d performance r e l a t i v e t o the c o n t r o l (no-explanation) group; f o r HSE s u b j e c t s , e x p l a i n i n g e i t h e r a success or f a i l u r e outcome i n c r e a s e d performance r e l a t i v e t o the c o n t r o l group. Together these two s t u d i e s p r o v i d e important e x t e n s i o n s o f the p r e v i o u s a v a i l a b i l i t y r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s . F i r s t , they show t h a t a h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n task can i n f l u e n c e not only s o c i a l judgments, but a l s o self-judgments ( e x p e c t a t i o n s ) . Second, they i n d i c a t e t h a t the i n f l u e n c e o f the e x p l a n a t i o n task ( a v a i l a b i l i t y manipulation) can extend beyond judgments (ex p e c t a t i o n s ) t o a c t u a l behavior (performance). T h i r d , they demonstrate t h a t a s k i n g s u b j e c t s to s t a t e an expectancy may be an important manipulation i n t h a t i t may be c r e a t i n g an expectancy r a t h e r than simply measuring one (see a l s o Dweck & G i l l i a r d , 1975). Only when e x p l i c i t e x p e c t a t i o n s had been e l i c i t e d d i d the h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n task have the a n t i c i p a t e d e f f e c t s on subsequent performance. That i s , the c o g n i t i o n s made d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e by the h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n task must be c o n s o l i d a t e d i n the form of e x p e c t a t i o n s i n order t o i n f l u e n c e subsequent performance; the h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n task a f f e c t e d e x p e c t a t i o n s which i n t u r n a f f e c t e d subsequent performance. F i n a l l y , the Campbell and F a i r e y r e s u l t s emphasize the importance of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - e s t e e m when examining the e f f e c t s o f 16 h y p o t h e t i c a l success and f a i l u r e e x p l a n a t i o n s on e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance; s e l f - e s t e e m appears to mediate the i n f l u e n c e o f h y p o t h e t i c a l f a i l u r e , but not h y p o t h e t i c a l success, e x p l a n a t i o n s . G e n e r a l i z a t i o n The present study i s designed t o c o n c e p t u a l l y r e p l i c a t e and extend the f i n d i n g s o f Sherman e t a l . (1981) and Campbell and F a i r e y (1985). The primary goal i s t o examine the extent t o which the e f f e c t s of h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s and s t a t e d e x p e c t a t i o n s g e n e r a l i z e t o a task other than the one i n v o l v e d i n the e x p l a n a t i o n . Two types o f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s are examined. The f i r s t type i n v o l v e s the extent to which e x p l a n a t i o n and e x p e c t a t i o n e f f e c t s w i l l g e n e r a l i z e t o a task f o r which e x p l a n a t i o n s and e x p e c t a t i o n s have not been made, but which shares q u a l i t i e s ( i . e . , i s r e l a t e d ) with the ta s k i n v o l v e d i n the e x p l a n a t i o n . The second k i n d of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i n v o l v e s a s c e r t a i n i n g i f the e x p l a n a t i o n and e x p e c t a t i o n e f f e c t s w i l l g e n e r a l i z e s t i l l f u r t h e r and a f f e c t performance on a second subsequent task d e s p i t e the i n t e r v e n t i o n of a c t u a l performance experience on the f i r s t t a s k . The second purpose i s to examine the p o t e n t i a l moderating e f f e c t s of s e l f - e s t e e m on the processes d e s c r i b e d above. A second study conducted by Sherman e t a l . (1981) has i n v e s t i g a t e d , a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y , some of these i s s u e s and i s t h e r e f o r e d i s c u s s e d below. Sherman e t a l . (Study 2) In a second study, Sherman e t a l . examined whether the 17 e x p l a n a t i o n and e x p e c t a t i o n e f f e c t s would g e n e r a l i z e to a new task a f t e r s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d feedback on the task t h a t had been e x p l a i n e d . S u b j e c t s were asked to e x p l a i n e i t h e r a h y p o t h e t i c a l success or f a i l u r e outcome f o r an anagram task and to s t a t e e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r t h e i r performance on "upcoming word t a s k s " . Experimental s u b j e c t s then worked on e i t h e r a very d i f f i c u l t or a very easy anagram task ( e i t h e r experienced a f a i l u r e or success outcome); c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s d i d not work on the anagram t a s k . F i n a l l y , a l l s u b j e c t s worked on a " d i f f e r e n t " word task, a word g e n e r a t i o n t a s k . Sherman e t a l . expected t h a t the h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n task would a f f e c t performance on the word g e n e r a t i o n task d e s p i t e i n t e r v e n i n g feedback on the anagram task . Although they a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t s u b j e c t s might generate spontaneous e x p l a n a t i o n s f o l l o w i n g t h e i r a c t u a l performance feedback on the anagram task (Ross, Lepper, and Hubbard, 1975), they f e l t t h a t the e f f e c t s of a c t u a l anagram performance feedback would not take precedence over the i n i t i a l e x p l a n a t i o n s because pr e v i o u s r e s u l t s , from r e s e a r c h which looked a t s t e r e o t y p e s r e s i s t a n c e t o change (Abelson, 1959) and the " i l l u s o r y c o r r e l a t i o n " phenomenon (Chapman & Chapman, 1967), have shown t h a t i n i t i a l b e l i e f systems i n f l u e n c e the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of subsequent i n f o r m a t i o n , so t h a t once an e x p l a n a t o r y s c r i p t i s c r e a t e d , new i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be i n t e r p r e t e d and absorbed i n t o the s c r i p t i n a way so as to maintain the i n i t i a l b e l i e f ( s ) . Even i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s incongruent with i n i t i a l b e l i e f s can be i n t e r p r e t e d so as to strengthen the i n i t i a l b e l i e f (Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979). 18 Thus, Sherman e t a l . p r e d i c t e d t h a t s u b j e c t s ' a c t u a l performance feedback would be i n t e r p r e t e d i n such a way t h a t the e f f e c t s o f the i n i t i a l h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n and e x p e c t a t i o n would be maintained. The r e s u l t s showed, as i n study 1, t h a t e x p l a i n i n g a h y p o t h e t i c a l outcome i n c r e a s e d the s u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y of t h a t outcome; s u b j e c t s who e x p l a i n e d a h y p o t h e t i c a l f a i l u r e f o r the anagram ta s k expected to do m a r g i n a l l y worse on the upcoming word t a s k s than d i d s u b j e c t s who e x p l a i n e d a h y p o t h e t i c a l s u c c e s s . The e f f e c t of the e x p l a n a t i o n s on a c t u a l anagram performance was the same as i n study 1; although o b v i o u s l y a l l s u b j e c t s performed b e t t e r on the easy than the d i f f i c u l t anagram task, s u b j e c t s s o l v e d more anagrams i f they had e x p l a i n e d a success than i f they had e x p l a i n e d a f a i l u r e . H y p o t h e t i c a l success and f a i l u r e e x p l a n a t i o n s , when f o l l o w e d by e x p l i c i t expectancy statements ( a l l s u b j e c t s s t a t e d e x p e c t a t i o n s ) , a f f e c t e d a c t u a l performance such t h a t the e x p l a i n e d outcome was b e h a v i o r a l l y confirmed. Of g r e a t e r i n t e r e s t , was the r e s u l t t h a t the e f f e c t s of the h y p o t h e t i c a l c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n s and s t a t e d e x p e c t a t i o n s g e n e r a l i z e d t o the word genera t i o n task; s u b j e c t s who had p r e v i o u s l y e x p l a i n e d a h y p o t h e t i c a l success f o r the anagram task performed b e t t e r on the word genera t i o n task than d i d s u b j e c t s who had p r e v i o u s l y e x p l a i n e d a h y p o t h e t i c a l f a i l u r e . In a d d i t i o n , the e x p l a n a t i o n task exerted more i n f l u e n c e on s u b j e c t s ' word g e n e r a t i o n performance than d i d s u b j e c t s ' manipulated success or f a i l u r e on the anagram task . Although both the present study and the Sherman e t a l . 19 (1981) second study examine the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of e x p l a n a t i o n and e x p e c t a t i o n e f f e c t s on f u t u r e performance, there are s e v e r a l important d i f f e r e n c e s between the two s t u d i e s . The p r e s e n t study i n c l u d e s a "no e x p l a n a t i o n " c o n d i t i o n which was not used by Sherman e t a l . i n t h e i r second study. T h i s i s an important c o n d i t i o n because, without i t , i t i s not p o s s i b l e to a s c e r t a i n whether h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s are necessary f o r e x p e c t a t i o n s to have any e f f e c t on performance on the next t a s k . The Campbell and F a i r e y study p r o v i d e d suggestive evidence t h a t e x p l a n a t i o n s are indeed necessary f o r e x p e c t a t i o n s to have an e f f e c t on subsequent performance. That i s , e x p e c t a t i o n s were p o s i t i v e l y and s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o r r e l a t e d with performance f o r s u b j e c t s who had w r i t t e n an e x p l a n a t i o n , but were v i r t u a l l y u n c o r r e l a t e d f o r those s u b j e c t s who had not w r i t t e n an e x p l a n a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , Sherman et a l . asked s u b j e c t s to g i v e a general expectancy r a t i n g f o r the upcoming word " t a s k s " and not j u s t f o r the task t h a t was e x p l a i n e d . The present study asks s u b j e c t s to s t a t e performance e x p e c t a t i o n s s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r the task t h a t has been e x p l a i n e d . The present study t e s t s the n o t i o n of g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y i n two ways, both of which d i f f e r from Sherman et a l . ' s procedures. F i r s t , i n order to see the extent to which the e f f e c t s of e x p l a n a t i o n and e x p e c t a t i o n g e n e r a l i z e to a task o t h e r than the one f o r which e x p l a n a t i o n s and e x p e c t a t i o n s are generated, some s u b j e c t s f i r s t work on the task a s s o c i a t e d with the e x p l a n a t i o n s and e x p e c t a t i o n s while other s u b j e c t s f i r s t work on a d i f f e r e n t , but r e l a t e d , t a s k . Second, a l l s u b j e c t s 20 then work on a second r e l a t e d task i n order t o see i f e x p l a n a t i o n and e x p e c t a t i o n e f f e c t s w i l l g e n e r a l i z e s t i l l f u r t h e r and a f f e c t performance on the second t a s k d e s p i t e the i n t e r v e n t i o n of a c t u a l performance experience on the f i r s t t a s k . Although Sherman e t a l . manipulated performance feedback on the f i r s t t a s k , the present study uses a c t u a l performance experience t o t e s t whether the e f f e c t s of the i n i t i a l e x p l a n a t i o n task w i l l predominate over a c t u a l performance on the f i r s t task and thus e x e r t i n f l u e n c e on s u b j e c t s ' performance on the second t a s k . Overview of the Present Study To r e i t e r a t e , the present study has s e v e r a l purposes. One purpose i s to p r o v i d e a conceptual r e p l i c a t i o n of the f i n d i n g s of Sherman e t a l . (1981) not only with r e s p e c t to the e f f e c t s of h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s on e x p e c t a t i o n s ( s e l f impressions) and the subsequent e f f e c t of both on a c t u a l performance, but a l s o with r e s p e c t to whether e x p l a n a t i o n and e x p e c t a t i o n e f f e c t s can indeed g e n e r a l i z e t o t a s k s other than the one f o r which e x p l a n a t i o n s and e x p e c t a t i o n s have been made. A second purpose i s t o r e p l i c a t e and extend the r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d by Campbell and F a i r e y (1985) c o n c e r n i n g the r o l e of s e l f - e s t e e m i n mediating the processes d e s c r i b e d above. In the p r e s e n t study, LSE and HSE s u b j e c t s are requested to w r i t e an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r a h y p o t h e t i c a l success or f a i l u r e on an upcoming word task, the Remote A s s o c i a t e T e s t (RAT), or to w r i t e no e x p l a n a t i o n . S u b j e c t s i n each e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n are then asked to s t a t e t h e i r performance expectancies f o r the RAT. H a l f 21 of the s u b j e c t s then work on the RAT; the other h a l f work on a " d i f f e r e n t " but r e l a t e d t ask, the anagram (AN) t a s k . A l l s u b j e c t s then s t a t e t h e i r performance e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r the next t a s k , a word g e n e r a t i o n task, and work on the task . Hypotheses In summary, the hypotheses t o be addressed i n t h i s study are: Hypothesis I. Subjec t s who e x p l a i n a h y p o t h e t i c a l s u c c e s s outcome w i l l expect t o perform b e t t e r on the f i r s t task than those s u b j e c t s who e x p l a i n a h y p o t h e t i c a l f a i l u r e outcome. Su b j e c t s who e x p l a i n no outcome w i l l g i v e i n t e r m e d i a t e e x p e c t a t i o n s . Hypothesis I I . Su c c e s s - e x p l a n a t i o n s u b j e c t s w i l l perform b e t t e r on the f i r s t task than f a i l u r e e x p l a n a t i o n s u b j e c t s or s u b j e c t s who w r i t e no e x p l a n a t i o n . Hypothesis I I I . LSE s u b j e c t s w i l l show s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance than HSE s u b j e c t s i n the f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n , but not i n the no-explanation and s u c c e s s - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s . E x p l a i n i n g a h y p o t h e t i c a l f a i l u r e should have a s u b s t a n t i a l l y n e g a t i v e e f f e c t only on the e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance of LSE s u b j e c t s ; e x p l a i n i n g a success should have a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on the e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance of both LSE and HSE s u b j e c t s ("asymmetry h y p o t h e s i s " ) . Hypothesis IV. The e f f e c t s of e x p l a n a t i o n and e x p e c t a t i o n should g e n e r a l i z e t o a task o t h e r than the one i n v o l v e d i n the e x p l a n a t i o n . Thus, hypotheses I - I I I should h o l d f o r those 22 s u b j e c t s who are asked t o work on the anagram task as w e l l as f o r those who work on the RAT. Hypothesis V. The RAT e x p l a n a t i o n and e x p e c t a t i o n t a s k s w i l l c o n t i n u e t o e x e r t i n f l u e n c e on e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance f o r the second word task, the word ge n e r a t i o n task, d e s p i t e a c t u a l performance experience on an i n t e r v e n i n g t a s k . Hypothesis VI. The s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s observed i n the e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance of s u b j e c t s on the f i r s t task w i l l a l s o be observed on the second tas k . 23 Method Design The design was a 2-- Self-esteem (high/low) x 3--E x p l a n a t i o n ( s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e / n o n e ) x 2-- I n i t i a l task type (RAT/AN) between s u b j e c t s f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n . S u b i e c t S e l e c t i o n Approximately t h r e e weeks p r i o r t o the study students i n i n t r o d u c t o r y psychology c l a s s e s were p r e t e s t e d on the Texas S o c i a l Behavior Inventory (TSBI). T h i s s c a l e i s a 32-item, L i k e r t s c a l e designed to assess i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r c e p t i o n s of s o c i a l competence and s e l f - e s t e e m . The r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the s c a l e have been demonstrated elsewhere (Helmreich, Stapp, & E r v i n , 1974). On the b a s i s of a median s p l i t of s c o r e s on t h i s measure students were c l a s s i f i e d as e i t h e r high or low i n s e l f - e s t e e m . S i x t y high s e l f - e s t e e m (HSE) and 60 low s e l f - e s t e e m (LSE) s u b j e c t s were randomly s e l e c t e d from the p r e t e s t group to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. At the time of r e c r u i t m e n t no mention was made of the p r e t e s t i n g . Subjects r e c e i v e d e x t r a course c r e d i t f o r t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Procedure Subjec t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n groups of f o u r to s i x , but f o l l o w i n g the i n i t i a l i n s t r u c t i o n s they were p l a c e d i n i n d i v i d u a l c u b i c l e s so as not to be a b l e t o see or communicate with one another. They were informed t h a t the study was concerned with v a r i o u s f a c t o r s t h a t u n d e r l i e v e r b a l performance and c r e a t i v i t y , and t h a t d u r i n g the experiment they would be asked to work on t h r e e r e l a t e d t a s k s : A word g e n e r a t i o n task 24 (WG); the Remote A s s o c i a t e Test (RAT); and an anagram task (see Appendix A f o r the s p e c i f i c t a s k s used). The g e n e r a l i n s t r u c t i o n s i n c l u d e d a d e s c r i p t i o n of the t h r e e types o f word t a s k s (WG, RAT, ANAGRAM) and i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r gen e r a t i n g s o l u t i o n s (sheets with the s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s and examples were a l s o given t o s u b j e c t s a t the time they a c t u a l l y worked on the ta s k s ) • I t was emphasized t h a t these t h r e e t a s k s are h i g h l y r e l a t e d i n t h a t each i n v o l v e s both c r e a t i v i t y and v e r b a l a b i l i t y , a l b e i t i n s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t ways. Su b j e c t s were t o l d t h a t they would work on a l l t h r e e t a s k s , but t h a t the order of the t a s k s was determined by random assignment. A f t e r r e c e i v i n g the general i n s t r u c t i o n s , a l l s u b j e c t s r a t e d themselves on a s e t of 15 b i p o l a r t r a i t a d j e c t i v e p a i r s (e.g.. Quiet- Out-spoken; Cautious- R i s k y ) ( s e e Appendix B). T h i s i n i t i a l r a t i n g t a s k was used both i n the Campbell and F a i r e y (19S5) and the Sherman e t a l . (1981) s t u d i e s t o make pers o n a l d i s p o s i t i o n s s a l i e n t when s u b j e c t s were subsequently asked t o w r i t e an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r a h y p o t h e t i c a l performance outcome. P r i o r t o working on the f i r s t word t a s k , t w o - t h i r d s of the s u b j e c t s were asked (a) to imagine t h a t they had al r e a d y completed the Remote A s s o c i a t e T e s t (RAT) and t h a t they had done e i t h e r very badly (worse than most a l l o t h e r students) or very w e l l ( b e t t e r than most a l l other students) and (b) t o w r i t e an ex p l a n a t i o n f o r such an outcome (see Appendix C ). I t was made c l e a r t o the s u b j e c t s t h a t the experimenter had no id e a how w e l l or p o o r l y they might do on the a c t u a l upcoming RAT word task and th a t the e x p l a n a t i o n was f o r a p u r e l y h y p o t h e t i c a l performance outcome on the task. The oth e r t h i r d of the 25 s u b j e c t s n e i t h e r imagined nor e x p l a i n e d any performance outcome. Sub j e c t s i n each e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n ( s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e / n o n e ) subsequently s t a t e d t h e i r performance e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r the RAT by checking on a 9-point s c a l e how w e l l they thought they would perform on the RAT r e l a t i v e t o other UBC students (see Appendix D). A l l s u b j e c t s were then g i v e n 10 minutes to work on the f i r s t t a s k . For h a l f of the s u b j e c t s , the f i r s t task was the RAT (the same task as the one used i n g e n e r a t i n g e x p l a n a t i o n s and e l i c i t i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s ) ; the o t h e r s u b j e c t s worked on the anagram task ( i . e . , a d i f f e r e n t , but r e l a t e d t a s k ) . S u b j e c t s working on the RAT were given a 12-item l i s t of Remote A s s o c i a t e s to s o l v e i n 10 minutes. The l i s t was a mixture of easy and d i f f i c u l t items taken from M c F a r l i n and B l a s c o v i c h (1982). Subje c t s working on the anagram task had 10 minutes to work on a s e t of 15 anagrams which c o n s i s t e d of a mixture of easy, moderate, and d i f f i c u l t items (Sherman e t a l . , 1981). For each task a cover page, g i v i n g the s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the task and an example, was attached to the f r o n t of the t a s k . A f t e r 10 minutes the task b o o k l e t s were c o l l e c t e d and s u b j e c t s were given a b r i e f q u e s t i o n n a i r e (see Appendix E ) . T h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e asked them to r a t e on 7-point s c a l e s : how many of the items they thought they had s o l v e d c o r r e c t l y (RAT)/(Anagram); how w e l l they thought they had performed; how s a t i s f i e d were they with t h e i r performance; how hard had they t r i e d on the task; to what ext e n t were they a b l e t o conc e n t r a t e e f f e c t i v e l y ; t o what extent they had f e l t anxious; t o what extent they cared about performing w e l l on the task; and how well they thought they had performed on the task r e l a t i v e t o the other students who d i d the task. In a d d i t i o n , a l l s u b j e c t s were asked t o r a t e on a 9-point s c a l e how they expected they would perform, r e l a t i v e t o other s t u d e n t s , on the second word task, the word g e n e r a t i o n t a s k . When s u b j e c t s f i n i s h e d the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , they were given b o o k l e t s c o n t a i n i n g the word generation task (a cover page with the i n s t r u c t i o n s and the task i t s e l f ) . S u b j e c t s were given 10 minutes t o form as many E n g l i s h words, of f o u r or more l e t t e r s , as p o s s i b l e from the th r e e words: Margarine; Nothingness; and Ginger A l e (Sherman e t a l . , 1981). A f t e r the word g e n e r a t i o n task, the b o o k l e t s were c o l l e c t e d and s u b j e c t s were given a f i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e (see Appendix F ) . F i n a l l y , s u b j e c t s were d e b r i e f e d (see Appendix G) and thanked f o r t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Dependent Measures The primary dependent measures were: s u b j e c t s ' i n i t i a l expectancy r a t i n g s ; s u b j e c t s ' performance on the f i r s t word task ( e i t h e r the RAT or anagram); the expectancy r a t i n g s t h a t s u b j e c t s gave f o r the second task (WG t a s k ) ; s u b j e c t s ' performance on the WG task; and f i n a l l y , a s e t of measures d e r i v e d from a content a n a l y s i s of the e x p l a n a t i o n s . 27 The content a n a l y s i s of the e x p l a n a t i o n s was c a r r i e d out u s i n g procedures based on the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system r e p o r t e d by Campbell and F a i r e y (1985), with some minor m o d i f i c a t i o n s . F i r s t , the number of d i f f e r e n t reasons given was coded. Subsequently, each reason was c l a s s i f i e d i n t o one of the f i v e c a t e g o r i e s o u t l i n e below. F i n a l l y , the number of reasons i n each category was d i v i d e d by the t o t a l number of reasons thus p r o v i d i n g the r e l a t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n of these reasons a c r o s s the f i v e c a t e g o r i e s . C h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l Reasons ( d i s p o s i t i o n a l s t a b l e ) The reasons i n the two c a t e g o r i e s l i s t e d under t h i s heading tend to be i n t e r n a l , s t a b l e , and g l o b a l (Janoff-Bulman, 1979). That i s , some enduring c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the person i s invoked to e x p l a i n an outcome. In the a t t r i b u t i o n l i t e r a t u r e r e g a r d i n g performance, a b i l i t y i s u s u a l l y seen as the main c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l reasons. However, i n the present study, as i n the Campbell and F a i r e y (1985) study, s u b j e c t s expressed reasons t h a t were c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l i n nature ( i . e . , i n t e r n a l , s t a b l e , and g l o b a l ) , but which d i d not i n c l u d e an a b i l i t y component but r a t h e r an emotional one. These " r e s i d u a l , e m o tional" reasons were c a t e g o r i z e d as c h r o n i c a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s . A b i l i t y . T h i s category i n c l u d e d any reason t h a t suggested t h a t performance was the r e s u l t of having or not having some s p e c i f i c or general a b i l i t y . F r e q u e n t l y c i t e d a b i l i t i e s were vocabulary, c r e a t i v i t y , s p e l l i n g , i n t e l l i g e n c e , and the a b i l i t y t o t h i n k a b s t r a c t l y about words. General statements such as "I 28 am not abl e t o t h i n k spontaneously" or "I have a quick, a l e r t mind" were a l s o i n c l u d e d . Chronic A f f e c t i v e R e a c t i o n s . A l l c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l reasons other than a b i l i t y were i n c l u d e d i n t h i s c a t e g o r y . A l l such r e s i d u a l reasons i n d i c a t e d t h a t performance was due to c h r o n i c a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s i n achievement s e t t i n g s . Common examples in c l u d e d "I always pa n i c under pr e s s u r e " , and "I always d e s i r e to do w e l l " . N o n c h a r a c t e r o l o q i c a l Reasons (unstable s i t u a t i o n a l ) The reasons i n the th r e e c a t e g o r i e s l i s t e d under t h i s heading tend t o be u n s t a b l e , s p e c i f i c , and e x t e r n a l (or te m p o r a r i l y i n t e r n a l ) i n nature. That i s , the reasons given f o r the occurrence o f a behavior, or an outcome, f o c u s on the s i t u a t i o n or some s p e c i f i c temporary aspect of one's c o n d i t i o n ( i . e . , f a t i g u e ) , r a t h e r than on any aspect of one's c h a r a c t e r . Chance. Chance i n c l u d e d any reason t h a t suggested t h a t performance was due to a chance occurrence. Commonly expressed reasons i n c l u d e d "I j u s t happened t o know the words", "I was lucky, they were obvious r e l a t i o n s " , and " I t was a f l u k e " . M o t i v a t i o n . T h i s category i n c l u d e d any reason t h a t i n d i c a t e d t h a t performance was due to m o t i v a t i o n and/or e f f o r t . Common reasons i n c l u d e d t r y i n g or not t r y i n g hard, and c a r i n g or not c a r i n g about performing w e l l . Temporary S i t u a t i o n a l . T h i s category i n c l u d e d any reason t h a t suggested t h a t performance was the r e s u l t of t h i n g s t h a t were o c c u r r i n g o n l y i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a n c e . For example, "I d i d n ' t panic on the tas k " , "I was t i r e d " , and "I was a b l e t o 29 co n c e n t r a t e on the t a s k " . A l l e x p l a n a t i o n s were coded by two female judges who were b l i n d with r e s p e c t t o the s u b j e c t ' s s e l f - e s t e e m s c o r e . There was s t r o n g agreement with r e s p e c t t o the number of d i f f e r e n t reasons (99.3*) gi v e n and category assignment of each reason (96.7%). The two judges were a b l e t o s o l v e any disagreements and i n a l l i n s t a n c e s were ab l e t o reach a consensus. 30 R e s u l t s R e s u l t s are presented i n s e v e r a l s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e s the r e s u l t s of u n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s e s conducted on s u b j e c t s ' (a) i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s , (b) f i r s t - t a s k performance, (c) second-task e x p e c t a t i o n s , and (d) second-task performance. 1 The second s e c t i o n d e t a i l s the change i n the e f f e c t s of the experimental v a r i a b l e s on e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance over time. The t h i r d s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s analyses of s u b j e c t s ' responses on the task q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . The f o u r t h s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e s the content of the e x p l a n a t i o n s and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h i s content a c r o s s type of e x p l a n a t i o n and s e l f - e s t e e m . The f i n a l s e c t i o n examines (a) the c o r r e l a t i o n s among the dependent measures, both a c r o s s and w i t h i n l e v e l s of the e x p l a n a t i o n m a n i p u l a t i o n , and (b) the c o r r e l a t i o n s of f u l l - s c a l e s e l f - e s t e e m s c o r e s with the dependent measures, both w i t h i n and a c r o s s l e v e l s of the e x p l a n a t i o n m a n i p u l a t i o n . I n i t i a l E x p e c t a t i o n Ratings ( E l ) S u b j e c t s ' i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s ( E l ) r e g a r d i n g t h e i r performance on the Remote A s s o c i a t e Test (RAT) were analyzed i n the context of a 2-- Self-esteem (high/low) x 3-- E x p l a n a t i o n ( s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e / n o n e ) ANOVA.2 There were main e f f e c t s f o r e x p l a n a t i o n , F(2,114) = 8.66, p< .001 and f o r s e l f - e s t e e m , F(l,114) = 13.59, p< .001. S u c c e s s - e x p l a n a t i o n s u b j e c t s expected to perform b e t t e r on the RAT (1.15) than d i d f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n s u b j e c t s (.13). C o n t r o l (no-explanation) s u b j e c t s gave i n t e r m e d i a t e e x p e c t a t i o n s (.50). With r e s p e c t to s e l f - e s t e e m , HSE s u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t they expected to 31 perform b e t t e r (.97) than d i d LSE s u b j e c t s (.22). Although the Sel f - e s t e e m x E x p l a n a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n a n t i c i p a t e d by the asymmetry hypothesis was not r e l i a b l e , the p a t t e r n i n g o f the c e l l means was c o n s i s t e n t with the hypo t h e s i s . A planned comparison corresponding t o the asymmetry p r e d i c t i o n was h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t , F(l,114) = 22.81, p< .001. 3 Although HSE s u b j e c t s had high e r e x p e c t a t i o n s than LSE s u b j e c t s i n every e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n , an a n a l y s i s of the simple e f f e c t s o f s e l f - e s t e e m w i t h i n e x p l a n a t i o n l e v e l s a l s o y i e l d e d r e s u l t s c o n s i s t e n t with the asymmetry p o s i t i o n . Self-esteem d i f f e r e n c e s were s i g n i f i c a n t i n the f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n , F(l,114) = 8.72, p< .005, but not i n the s u c c e s s - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n (F < 1). In the c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n , t h e r e was a l s o a r e l i a b l e s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e , F(l,114) = 6.13, p< .02, r e f l e c t i n g the gen e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t LSE i n d i v i d u a l s u s u a l l y have lower performance e x p e c t a n c i e s than HSE i n d i v i d u a l s . C e l l means are presented i n F i g u r e 1. Performance on the F i r s t Task (PI) Su b j e c t s ' performance on the f i r s t task (PI) was analyzed i n the context o f a 2-- Self-esteem (high/low) x 3-- E x p l a n a t i o n ( s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e / n o n e ) x 2-- I n i t i a l task type (RAT/anagram task) ANOVA. C o n s i s t e n t with both the Sherman e t a l . (1981) and the Campbell and F a i r e y (1985) s t u d i e s , t h e r e was a main e f f e c t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n , F(2,108) = 6.09, p< .003. Su c c e s s - e x p l a n a t i o n s u b j e c t s performed b e t t e r (.40) than f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n s u b j e c t s (-.33), with c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s e x h i b i t i n g i n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l s of performance (-.08). 32 F i g u r e 1. Mean i n i t i a l task expectancy r a t i n g as a f u n c t i o n of e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n and s e l f - e s t e e m . 33 2 15 1 0.5 H 1 z o 2 -0.5 - t5H -2 CXPLAM success CONTROL EXPLAIN FAM.URC HSE LSE EXPLANATION COhOTlON 34 The aelf-esteem e f f e c t s o b tained by Campbell and F a i r e y (1985) were a l s o r e p l i c a t e d . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t E x p l a n a t i o n x Self-esteem i n t e r a c t i o n , F(2,108) = 3.77, Q< .03. T h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e 2. An a n a l y s i s of simple e f f e c t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance were s i g n i f i c a n t only i n the f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n , F(1,108) = 6.66, p< .02; LSE s u b j e c t s performed worse than HSE s u b j e c t s . In the s u c c e s s - e x p l a n a t i o n and c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s , LSE s u b j e c t s a c t u a l l y performed s l i g h t l y b e t t e r than HSE s u b j e c t s , but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y so (Fs < 1). S t a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y , the e f f e c t of the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation d i f f e r e d f o r LSE and HSE s u b j e c t s . For LSE s u b j e c t s , a f a i l u r e e x p l a n a t i o n decreased performance and a success e x p l a n a t i o n i n c r e a s e d performance r e l a t i v e t o the c o n t r o l group. For HSE s u b j e c t s , e i t h e r a success or f a i l u r e e x p l a n a t i o n i n c r e a s e d performance r e l a t i v e t o the c o n t r o l group. The l i n e a r - t r e n d component was h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r LSE s u b j e c t s , F ( l , 5 7 ) = 15.69, p_< .001, but not f o r HSE s u b j e c t s (F < 1); the q u a d r a t i c - t r e n d component approached s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r HSE s u b j e c t s F ( l , 5 7 ) = 2.67, p< .09, but was not r e l i a b l e f o r LSE s u b j e c t s (F < 1). A primary purpose of the present study was t o a s c e r t a i n i f the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation would g e n e r a l i z e t o a r e l a t e d , but unexplained, task performed immediately a f t e r e x p l a n a t i o n s and e x p e c t a t i o n s had been e l i c i t e d . The present r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t the manipulation does indeed e x h i b i t t h i s k i n d of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . There were no main e f f e c t s or i n t e r a c t i o n s f o r 35 F i g u r e 2 . Mean f i r s t task performance as a f u n c t i o n of e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n and s e l f - e s t e e m . V EXPLAIN success CONTROL EXPLAIN FAILURE EXPLANATION CONDITION 37 i n i t i a l task type, Fs < 1. That i s , the e x p l a n a t i o n m a n i p u l a t i o n ( i n c o n j u n c t i o n with self-esteem) a f f e c t e d subsequent performance i n the a n t i c i p a t e d d i r e c t i o n r e g a r d l e s s of whether the performance took p l a c e on the task f o r which e x p l a n a t i o n s and e x p e c t a t i o n s had been generated (RAT) or on a d i f f e r e n t , but r e l a t e d , task (anagram). The r e s u l t s presented thus f a r i n d i c a t e t h a t the e x p l a n a t i o n m a n i p u l a t i o n , i n c o n j u n c t i o n with s e l f - e s t e e m , a f f e c t e d s u b j e c t s ' i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance. Because the manip u l a t i o n a f f e c t e d both e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance, i t i s of some i n t e r e s t t o a s c e r t a i n whether the manipulation's impact on performance was completely mediated by i t s e f f e c t on e x p e c t a t i o n s or whether i t a l s o had an independent or d i r e c t e f f e c t on performance. To examine t h i s i s s u e , a 2 x 3 x 2 (Self-esteem x E x p l a n a t i o n x I n i t i a l task type) u n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of c o v a r i a n c e (ANCOVA) was conducted on f i r s t - t a s k performance with i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s ( E l ) as a c o v a r i a t e (see Rogosa, 1979 and R e i s , 1982 f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of the use of ANCOVA i n a n a l y z i n g m e d i a t i o n a l e f f e c t s ) . The a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t E l was a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r or c o r r e l a t e o f f i r s t - t a s k performance, F(l,107) = 6.40, p< .02. Of g r e a t e r i n t e r e s t , however, was the f a c t t h a t , even a f t e r the impact of E l was removed, the main e f f e c t f o r the e x p l a n a t i o n m a n i p u l a t i o n was s t i l l r e l i a b l e , F(2,107) = 3.89, p< .03. Thus, the impact of the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation on performance was not t o t a l l y mediated by i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s ; the manipulation e x e r t e d an e f f e c t on f i r s t - t a s k performance independent of i t s e f f e c t on 38 i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s . E x p e c t a t i o n Ratings f o r the Second Task (E2) Subje c t s ' e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r the second task (E2), the word ge n e r a t i o n task, were analyzed i n the context of a 2 x 3 x 2 (Self-esteem x E x p l a n a t i o n x I n i t i a l task type) ANOVA. C e l l means a s s o c i a t e d with the e x p l a n a t i o n and s e l f - e s t e e m f a c t o r s are d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e 3. Again there was a main e f f e c t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n , F(l,108) = 3.05, p = .05. Su b j e c t s who had ex p l a i n e d a success expected t o perform b e t t e r on the word ge n e r a t i o n task (.30) than d i d f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n s u b j e c t s (-.37). C o n t r o l s u b j e c t s gave i n t e r m e d i a t e e x p e c t a t i o n r a t i n g s (-.12). There were no main e f f e c t s f o r s e l f - e s t e e m or i n i t i a l t a s k type (Fs < 1). Although the omnibus Self-esteem x E x p l a n a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n was not r e l i a b l e , the p a t t e r n i n g of the c e l l means was comparable t o t h a t obtained on the i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n r a t i n g s ( r e c a l l t h a t the i n t e r a c t i o n was a l s o not r e l i a b l e f o r i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s ) . The planned comparison r e l e v a n t to the asymmetry p r e d i c t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t , F(l,114) = 8.64, p< .01. An a n a l y s i s of the simple e f f e c t s of se l f - e s t e e m w i t h i n l e v e l s of ex p l a n a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n ex p e c t a t i o n s were m a r g i n a l l y r e l i a b l e i n the f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n , F(l,108) = 3.68, p< .06, but not i n the su c c e s s - e x p l a n a t i o n or c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s (Fs < 1). A 2 x 3 x 2 (Self-esteem x E x p l a n a t i o n x I n i t i a l task type) ANCOVA was conducted to examine the i s s u e of m e d i a t i o n a l and d i r e c t e f f e c t s of the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation on second-task 39 F i g u r e 3 . Mean second task expectancy r a t i n g as a f u n c t i o n of e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n and s e l f - e s t e e m . 4 0 o z an z o 1 25 Q O a to 2 t5 1-0.5-0--0.5--1--1.5--2 HSE LSE CXPLAM SUCCESS CONTROL EXPLAIN FAM.URE EXPUNATION CONDITION 41 e x p e c t a t i o n s . The i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n r a t i n g s <E1) and performance on the f i r s t task (PI) were entered as c o v a r i a t e s . R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the e x p l a n a t i o n main e f f e c t on second-task e x p e c t a t i o n s was s t r o n g l y mediated by s u b j e c t s ' i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance. The ANCOVA i n d i c a t e d t h a t the E l c o v a r i a t e was h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t , F(l,106) = 34.90, p< .001; the PI c o v a r i a t e was a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t source of independent v a r i a t i o n , F(1,105) = 15.27, p< .001. When the impact of these two v a r i a b l e s on E2 was removed, the main e f f e c t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n d i d not approach s i g n i f i c a n c e (F < 1). T h i s a n a l y s i s suggests t h a t the e f f e c t of the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation on s u b j e c t s ' second e x p e c t a t i o n r a t i n g s was n e a r l y completely mediated by i t s e f f e c t s on i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance; t h e r e was no r e l i a b l e independent or d i r e c t e f f e c t of the manipulation on e x p e c t a n c i e s when i t s i n d i r e c t e f f e c t s v i a i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance were removed. Performance on the Second Task (P2) A second primary purpose of the present study was to a s c e r t a i n i f the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation would f u r t h e r g e n e r a l i z e t o performance on a second unexplained task a f t e r the i n t e r v e n t i o n of a c t u a l performance experience on a p r i o r t a s k . S u b j e c t s ' performance on the second task (P2) was analyzed i n the context o f a 2 x 3 x 2 (Self-esteem x E x p l a n a t i o n x I n i t i a l task type) ANOVA. The ANOVA y i e l d e d no r e l i a b l e e f f e c t s , a l l Fs < 1.70. In p a r t i c u l a r , the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation exerted no r e l i a b l e impact (F < 1.68) on s u b j e c t s ' second-task performance, a f i n d i n g t h a t c o n t r a d i c t s the r e s u l t s 42 obtained by Sherman e t a l . (1981, study 2 ) . P o t e n t i a l reasons f o r the c o n t r a d i c t i o n are expl o r e d i n the d i s c u s s i o n s e c t i o n . Although t h e r e was no evidence f o r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n to the second task i t should be noted t h a t the p a t t e r n of the means a s s o c i a t e d with the e x p l a n a t i o n and s e l f - e s t e e m f a c t o r s on P2 was i d e n t i c a l t o the p a t t e r n f o r PI (see F i g u r e 4.). Although the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the P2 means were g r e a t l y a t t e n u a t e d and no longer r e l i a b l e , they d i d e x h i b i t the same r e l a t i v e p a t t e r n a s s o c i a t e d with the PI means. Although the independent v a r i a b l e s f a i l e d t o e x e r t a s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e on s u b j e c t s ' performance on the word generation task, i t i s of some i n t e r e s t t o note whether s u b j e c t s ' p r i o r responses, such as performance on the f i r s t task (PI) and f i r s t and second task e x p e c t a t i o n r a t i n g s ( E l and E2), which were i n f l u e n c e d by the e x p l a n a t i o n m a n i p u l a t i o n , were p r e d i c t i v e o f performance on the second t a s k . A m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was conducted with the t h r e e v a r i a b l e s mentioned above ( E l , E2, and PI) as p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s and performance on the word g e n e r a t i o n task as the c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e . The a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of the v a r i a n c e (R 2 = .21, F(3,116) = 10.24, p< .001) was accounted f o r by these t h r e e p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s . ' * A t t e n u a t i o n of the Experimental V a r i a b l e s over Time The u n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s e s r e p o r t e d above suggest t h a t the impact of the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation d e t e r i o r a t e d over time/task. The manipulation ( i n combination with self-esteem) s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n c e d s u b j e c t s ' e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance F i g u r e 4. Mean second task performance as a f u n c t i o n e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d t i o n and self-esteem. "PLAIN CONTROL EXPLAIN SUCCESS FAILURE EXPLANATION CONDITION 45 on the f i r s t task, but had a somewhat weaker i n f l u e n c e on the second-task ex p e c t a t i o n s and no r e l i a b l e i n f l u e n c e on the second-task performance. To determine i f the apparent a t t e n u a t i o n of the manipulation on e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance was indeed a s i g n i f i c a n t one a c r o s s time/task, a n a l y s e s of v a r i a n c e with repeated measures were conducted f o r both e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance. A 2 (Self-esteem) x 3 ( e x p l a n a t i o n ) x 2 ( I n i t i a l task type) x 2 (Time) ANOVA on the two e x p e c t a t i o n measures ( E l and E2) y i e l d e d a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r time, F(l,108) = 36.22, p< .001. O v e r a l l , s u b j e c t s claimed h i g h e r e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r the f i r s t task (.60) than f o r the second task (.07). There was a l s o a Self-esteem x Time i n t e r a c t i o n , F(l,108) = 5.58, p< .02. High s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s demonstrated a l a r g e r drop i n e x p e c t a t i o n s from t i m e l t o time2 than LSE s u b j e c t s . The Self-esteem x Time i n t e r a c t i o n r e f l e c t s the f a c t t h a t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t s e l f - e s t e e m main e f f e c t f o r E l , but not f o r E2. HSE s u b j e c t s e x h i b i t e d h i g h e r e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r the f i r s t task than LSE s u b j e c t s (.97 vs. .22), but e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r the second task were s i m i l a r f o r both HSE (.05) and LSE (-.18) s u b j e c t s (the simple e f f e c t s t e s t s were gi v e n i n the u n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s e s ) . Stated d i f f e r e n t l y , although both LSE and HSE s u b j e c t s ' e x p e c t a t i o n s dropped s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t i m e l ( t a s k l ) t o time2 (task 2), a simple e f f e c t s a n a l y s i s of time w i t h i n s e l f - e s t e e m r e v e a l e d t h a t HSE s u b j e c t s e x h i b i t e d a steeper drop i n e x p e c t a t i o n s , F(l,108) = 35.11, p< .001, than d i d LSE s u b j e c t s , F(l,108) = 6.69, p< .02. 46 F i n a l l y , t h e r e waa a marginal t h r e e - f a c t o r i n t e r a c t i o n between self-eateem, e x p l a n a t i o n , and time, F(2,108) = 2.S3, p< .06. An i n s p e c t i o n of the means i n d i c a t e d t h a t the Self-esteem x Time i n t e r a c t i o n was only pronounced i n the c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n , F(l,108) = 10.88, p< -005. In t h i s c o n d i t i o n , HSE s u b j e c t s ' e x p e c t a t i o n r a t i n g s dropped s h a r p l y from t i m e l (1.0) to time2 (-.25), while LSE s u b j e c t s ' e x p e c t a t i o n s remained co n s t a n t (0.0 at both t i m e l and time2). The i n t e r a c t i o n was not r e l i a b l e i n the s u c c e s s - and f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s , F B < 1. The 2 x 3 x 2 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA on the two performance measures (PI and P2) y i e l d e d no r e l i a b l e main e f f e c t s or i n t e r a c t i o n s f o r time. The repeated measures analyses f o r e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance i n d i c a t e d t h a t the a t t e n u a t i o n of the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation e f f e c t was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t i t had a more s u b s t a n t i a l e f f e c t on i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance than on subsequent e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance; the E x p l a n a t i o n x Time i n t e r a c t i o n was not r e l i a b l e f o r e i t h e r e x p e c t a t i o n s (F = .88, p_< .42) or performance (F = 2.16, p_< .12). The l a c k of a r e l i a b l e i n t e r a c t i o n i s perhaps not p a r t i c u l a r l y s u r p r i s i n g given t h a t the o v e r a l l p a t t e r n °£ the means at t i m e l and time2 was h i g h l y s i m i l a r f o r both measures. Que s t i o n n a i r e Responses F i r s t task q u e s t i o n n a i r e . On the q u e s t i o n n a i r e g i v e n a f t e r s u b j e c t s had completed the f i r s t task ( e i t h e r Remote A s s o c i a t e 47 Test/anagram t a s k ) , s u b j e c t s r a t e d t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s of and s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r performance. Because these two measures were h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d (r = .73, p< .001), they were converted to z-scores and summed to form a more s t a b l e index of p e r c e i v e d performance. The p e r c e p t i o n index (PP1) was s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o r r e l a t e d with performance on the f i r s t t ask (r = .68, p< .001). A 2 x 3 x 2 (Self-esteem x E x p l a n a t i o n x I n i t i a l task type) ANOVA of the index y i e l d e d only a main e f f e c t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n , F(2,108) = 6.33, p< .003. S u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d t h e i r performance more f a v o r a b l y i n the s u c c e s s - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n (.69) than i n the c o n t r o l (.01) or f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n (-.70) c o n d i t i o n s . Although the Self-esteem x E x p l a n a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n was r e l i a b l e f o r a c t u a l performance on the f i r s t task, the i n t e r a c t i o n was not r e l i a b l e f o r p e r c e p t i o n s of performance, F(2,108> = 1.60, p< .20. S u b j e c t s a l s o r a t e d the extent to which they had t r i e d hard to perform w e l l on the task. The ANOVA y i e l d e d o n l y a main e f f e c t f o r s e l f - e s t e e m , F(l,108) = 3.98, p< .05; LSE s u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t they t r i e d harder (5.93) than HSE s u b j e c t s (5.60). In a d d i t i o n , s u b j e c t s r a t e d the extent to which they cared about doing w e l l , were ab l e to c o n c e n t r a t e , and had experienced a n x i e t y while working on the t a s k . No s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s were found on any of these t h r e e r a t i n g s . Post-experimental q u e s t i o n n a i r e . On the q u e s t i o n n a i r e g i v e n a f t e r the second task, s u b j e c t s r a t e d p e r c e p t i o n s of and s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r second-task performance. The two p e r c e p t i o n measures were again h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d (r = .78, 48 p< .001), and the sum ( p e r c e p t i o n index --PP2) was again s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o r r e l a t e d with a c t u a l performance (r = .49, p< .001). The ANOVA on the second p e r c e p t i o n index y i e l d e d a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n , F(2,108) = 3.74, p< .03; s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d t h e i r performance more f a v o r a b l y i n the s u c c e s s - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n (.46) than i n the c o n t r o l (.14) or f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n (-.61) c o n d i t i o n s . There was a l s o a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r s e l f - e s t e e m , F(l,108) = 5.28 p< .03; HSE s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d t h e i r performance more f a v o r a b l y (.38) than d i d LSE s u b j e c t s (-.38). In order to determine i f the e x p l a n a t i o n and s e l f - e s t e e m e f f e c t s on the second p e r c e p t i o n index (PP2) were mediated by s u b j e c t s ' p r e v i o u s responses, a 2 x 3 x 2 ANCOVA was performed on the second p e r c e p t i o n index. E x p e c t a t i o n s on the f i r s t and second t a s k s ( E l and E2), performance on the f i r s t and second ta s k s (PI and P2), and the f i r s t p e r c e p t i o n index (PP1) were entered as c o v a r i a t e s . T h i s a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d t h a t P2 (F(l,103) = 25.70, p< .001), PI (F(l,103) = 6.86, p< .01), E2 (F(l,103) = 6.06, p< .02) and PP1 (F(l,103) = 4.45, p< .05), a l l e x h i b i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t independent i n f l u e n c e s on s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e i r second-task performance. When the impact of these v a r i a b l e s was removed the main e f f e c t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n was no longer r e l i a b l e (F - 2.39, n s . ) . However, the main e f f e c t f o r s e l f - e s t e e m , although reduced, remained f a i r l y r e l i a b l e (F = 3.65, p< .06) On the post-experimental q u e s t i o n n a i r e , s u b j e c t s a l s o r a t e d how they viewed t h e i r g e n e r a l v e r b a l a b i l i t y r e l a t i v e t o other 49 s t u d e n t s . A n a l y s i s of t h i s measure y i e l d e d a s e l f - e s t e e m main e f f e c t F( 1,108) = 8.08, p_< -005; HSE s u b j e c t s r a t e d t h e i r g eneral v e r b a l a b i l i t y h i g h e r (5.57) than d i d LSE s u b j e c t s (4.92). There was a l s o a main e f f e c t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n F(2,10S) = 4.94, p< .009; s u b j e c t s who had e x p l a i n e d a success r a t e d t h e i r v e r b a l a b i l i t y higher (5.65) than those who had e x p l a i n e d a f a i l u r e (4.77); c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s gave i n t e r m e d i a t e r a t i n g s (5.30). One other measure on t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n d i c a t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the groups. T h i s measure examined whether s u b j e c t s f e l t t h a t they had a l o t on t h e i r minds and t h a t t h i s i n t u r n had a f f e c t e d t h e i r performance. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n , F(2,108) = 4.49, p< .02; s u b j e c t s i n the f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s t a t e d t h a t t h i s f a c t o r was more a p p l i c a b l e to themselves (4.70) than d i d the c o n t r o l (3.80) or the s u c c e s s - e x p l a n a t i o n (3.72) s u b j e c t s . No r e l i a b l e group d i f f e r e n c e s (Fs <1) were found on any of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ' s other measures (how hard s u b j e c t s s a i d they t r i e d , how much the cared about doing w e l l , how w e l l they were a b l e t o c o n c e n t r a t e , or whether they ex p e r i e n c e d a n x i e t y while working on the t a s k ) . Content of the E x p l a n a t i o n s As o u t l i n e d i n the Method s e c t i o n , the t o t a l number of d i f f e r e n t reasons s u b j e c t s used i n t h e i r e x p l a n a t i o n s was coded as w e l l as the d i s t r i b u t i o n of these reasons a c r o s s f i v e c a t e g o r i e s : two d i s p o s i t i o n a l s t a b l e ( c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l ) c a t e g o r i e s ( a b i l i t y and c h r o n i c a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s ) and t h r e e 50 un s t a b l e ( n o n c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l ) c a t e g o r i e s (chance, m o t i v a t i o n , and temporary s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s ) . There were no r e l i a b l e e f f e c t s on the t o t a l number of reasons g i v e n (Fs < 1). However, a 2 x 2 x 5 (Self-esteem x E x p l a n a t i o n x Category) repeated measures ANOVA on the percentage o f reasons i n each category d i d y i e l d some i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s . Mean percentages, along with summary percentages f o r c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l versus n o n c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l c a t e g o r i e s are giv e n i n Table 1. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t E x p l a n a t i o n x Category i n t e r a c t i o n , F(3,228) = 22.8, g< .001. Success e x p l a n a t i o n s contained a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f a b i l i t y reasons (62.6* vs 21.8*) and a s m a l l e r p r o p o r t i o n o f chance (4.4* vs 17.7%) and temporary s i t u a t i o n a l reasons (11.8* vs 42.8*) than d i d f a i l u r e e x p l a n a t i o n s (Fs > 8.73, p.< .004). The d i s t r i b u t i o n of c h r o n i c a f f e c t i v e and m o t i v a t i o n a l reasons d i d not d i f f e r r e l i a b l y between the su c c e s s - and f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s (Fs < 1.1). There were no s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s f o r self-esteem on the percentage o f reasons given i n any p a r t i c u l a r category. However, a 2 x 2 (E x p l a n a t i o n x Self-esteem) ANOVA on the t o t a l percentage o f c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l reasons y i e l d e d a marginal E x p l a n a t i o n x Self-esteem i n t e r a c t i o n , F ( l , 7 6 ) » 3.37, p< .07. T h i s r e s u l t r e p r e s e n t s a r e p l i c a t i o n o f a. w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e i n a t t r i b u t i o n s (e.g., Campbell & F a i r e y , 1985; Zuckerman, 1979). High s e l f - e s t e e m s u b j e c t s e x h i b i t e d a str o n g e r s e l f - s e r v i n g b i a s than LSE s u b j e c t s . Although both groups of s u b j e c t s gave a l a r g e r percentage of c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l 51 T a b l e 1 Content of E x p l a n a t i o n s by E x p l a n a t i o n Type and S e l f - E s t e e m E x p l a n a t i o n type Success F a i l u r e Content c a t e r g o r y LSE HSE D i f f e r e n c e LSE HSE Di f f e r e n c e C h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l reasons A b i l i t y Af f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s 61 .3 16.6 64. 1 23.5 2.8 7.0 31.3 12.0 12.4 15.8 -18 .9 3.8 T o t a l 77.8 87.5 9.8 43.3 28.2 -15 .1 N o n c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l reasons Chance 8.8 0.0 - 8 . 8 17.0 18.6 1.6 Mot i v a t i o n 1.7 0.7 -1 .0 2.9 4.8 1.9 S i t u a t i o n a l 11.8 11.8 0.0 37. 1 48.7 11.6 T o t a l 22.3 12.5 - 9 . 8 57.0 72. 1 15.1 N o t e . E n t r i e s a re the mean percentage of reasons g i v e n in each c a t e g o r y . S e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s are h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m (HSE) p e r c e n t a g e s minus low s e l f - e s t e e m (LSE) p e r c e n t a g e s , n = 20 i n each t a b l e e n t r y . 52 reasons for succeeding than for f a i l i n g , t h i s difference was more pronounced among HSE subjects. Correlational Analyses The correlations between i n i t i a l expectations and explanation content are presented f i r s t . Second, the correlations among the dependent variables ( E l , PI, PP1, E2, P2, and PP2) are given (a) for the entire sample and (b) within levels of the explanation manipulation.^ F i n a l l y , the correlations between f u l l - s c a l e self-esteem scores and the dependent measures are given (a) for the entir e sample and (b) by leve l s of explanation. Expectations and explanation content. The ANOVA indicated that, as anticipated, subjects' expectations were influenced by the d i f f e r e n t i a l a v a i l a b i l i t y of reasons f o r succeeding and f a i l i n g (the explanation manipulation). I t was further anticipated that the proportion of characterological reasons contained i n the explanations should be p o s i t i v e l y correlated with subjects' expectations in the success-explanation condition and negatively correlated with t h e i r expectations in the failure-explanation condition. The co r r e l a t i o n s were -.20 i n the failure-explanation condition and .07 i n the success-explanation condition. Although these correlations were in the right d i r e c t i o n , they were not r e l i a b l y d i f f e r e n t (z = 1.17, p< .20). However, the correlations between the percentage of a b i l i t y reasons given (one of the characterological categories) and i n i t i a l expectations did reveal a r e l i a b l e difference, (z = 2.20, p<.04). The 53 c o r r e l a t i o n wae p o s i t i v e i n the success c o n d i t i o n (r 3 .26, B< .05), and n e g a t i v e i n the f a i l u r e c o n d i t i o n (r = -.24, B< .06). C o r r e l a t i o n s among the dependent v a r i a b l e s . The c o r r e l a t i o n s among the dependent measures, f o r the e n t i r e sample and w i t h i n l e v e l s of the e x p l a n a t i o n m a n i p u l a t i o n , are presented i n Table 2. The i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s were a l l p o s i t i v e and r e l i a b l e ( only the P1/PP1 c o r r e l a t i o n d i d not q u i t e reach s i g n i f i c a n c e ) a c r o s s the e n t i r e sample. The d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y of the e x p e c t a t i o n and performance measures i s a t t e s t e d t o by the f a c t t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n s between the two e x p e c t a t i o n s ( E l and E2) and the two performance measures (PI and P2) were higher than were the c o r r e l a t i o n s between e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance on the same task. I t i s a l s o i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t the E l / PI c o r r e l a t i o n i s h i g h l y comparable to the E l / P2 c o r r e l a t i o n . T h i s p a t t e r n i s c o n s i s t e n t with the n o t i o n t h a t the e f f e c t s of the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation on subsequent performance were not completely mediated by i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s (a n o t i o n supported by the ANCOVA r e s u l t ) . R e c a l l t h a t the manipulation r e l i a b l y a f f e c t e d f i r s t , but not second, task performance. I f the e f f e c t s of the manipulation on f i r s t - t a s k performance were completely mediated by i t s e f f e c t s on i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s , one would expect t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n between E l and P2 would be s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than the c o r r e l a t i o n between E l and PI. Because t h i s i s c l e a r l y not the case, i t appears t h a t the weakening of the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation e f f e c t over t i m e / t asks may be due t o something Table 2 Correlations Among the Dependent Measures Within/Across Explanation Condition P1 PP1 E2 P2 PP2 S / F / C S / F / C S / F / c S / F / c S / F / c ( T ) ( T ) ( T ) ( T ) ( T ) El .16/ .31/ -.04 .24/ .27/ .03 .50/ .55/ .43 26/ • 19/ . 1 1 .33/ .03/ .33 ( .22) ( .25) ( .52) ( .20) ( .29) P1 .64/ .71/ .57 .36/ .45/ . 27 .41/ .35/ .53 .05/ .23/ .03 ( .68) ( .40) ( .44) ( • 17) PP1 .35/ .49/ . 35 . 20/ .44/ . 26 . 12/ .25/ .33 ( .44) ( .33) ( .29) E2 .32/ .30/ .23 .40/ .26/ .41 ( . 29) ( .38) P2 .53/ .49/ .36 ( .48) Note. Correlations with value + .18 (T) and + .31 (S/F/C) are r e l i a b l e at the .05 l e v e l . T • Total sample, n • 120; S • Success-explanation condition, n • 40; F • Failure-explanation condition n = 40; C » Control (no-explanation) condition, n = 40; E1 • i n i t i a l expectations; P1 » f i r s t -task performace; PP1 » f i r s t - t a s k perception index; E2 » second-task expectations; P2 » second-task performance; PP2 » second-task perception Index. 55 o t h e r than a d e t e r i o r a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n between i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s and the two performances. Although the c o r r e l a t i o n s d i d not d i f f e r r e l i a b l y between the e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s , t h e r e were a couple of i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n s . In g e n e r a l , the c o r r e l a t i o n s among the dependent measures were more pronounced f o r s u b j e c t s who had generated e x p l a n a t i o n s (success and f a i l u r e c o n d i t i o n s ) than f o r s u b j e c t s who had not ( c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n ) . In p a r t i c u l a r , i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s ( E l ) were more h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d with both f i r s t and second task performance, second-task e x p e c t a t i o n s , and p e r c e p t i o n s of f i r s t task performance among s u b j e c t s who had generated an e x p l a n a t i o n . T h i s p a t t e r n i s c o n s i s t e n t with the r e s u l t s of the Campbell and F a i r e y (1985) study; the c o r r e l a t i o n between e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance was r e l i a b l e among s u b j e c t s who had generated an e x p l a n a t i o n but not among c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . C o r r e l a t i o n s with f u l l - s c a l e s e l f - e s t e e m s c o r e s . The analyses of v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d s e v e r a l e f f e c t s f o r the median s p l i t on s e l f - e s t e e m . To a s c e r t a i n i f these e f f e c t s were l i m i t e d t o the median s p l i t or obtained a c r o s s the e n t i r e range of the s e l f - e s t e e m v a r i a b l e , c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s e s were conducted using the raw s e l f - e s t e e m s c o r e s . C o r r e l a t i o n s of the dependent v a r i a b l e s with raw s e l f - e s t e e m s c o r e s , both f o r the e n t i r e sample and w i t h i n l e v e l s of the e x p l a n a t i o n m a n i p u l a t i o n , are presented i n Table 3. The c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d t h a t , f o r the e n t i r e sample, only E l and PP2 c o r r e l a t e d r e l i a b l y with s e l f - e s t e e m . The remaining c o r r e l a t i o n s were c l o s e to z e r o . T h i s p a t t e r n i s 56 T a b l e 3 C o r r e l a t i o n s of Dependent Measures with Self-Esteem Within/Across  E x p l a n a t i o n C o n d i t i o n Dependent measures El PI PP1 E2 P2 PP2 S e l f - e s t e e m (Success) .21 -.03 -.16 .11 .05 .10 S e l f - e s t e e m ( F a i l u r e ) .43** .36* .19 .35* .22 .19 S e l f - e s t e e m ( C o n t r o l ) .25 -.26 -.10 -.16 -.05 .32* S e l f - e s t e e m ( T o t a l ) .29** .04 .00 .09 .08 .18* Note. T o t a l sample, n = 120; S u c c e s s / F a i l u r e / C o n t r o l , n = 40. E l = i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s ; P1 = f i r s t - t a s k performance; PP1 = f i r s t - t a s k p e r c e p t i o n index; E2 = second-task e x p e c t a t i o n s ; P2 = second-task performance; PP2 = second-task p e r c e p t i o n index. *p< .05, t w o - t a i l e d **p_< .01, t w o - t a i l e d 57 comparable t o the ANOVA r e s u l t s and suggests t h a t the ANOVAs were not dependent on an advantageous s p l i t o f the s e l f - e s t e e m s c o r e s . The p a t t e r n o f the c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n l e v e l s o f the ex p l a n a t i o n m a n i p u l a t i o n a l s o support s e v e r a l f i n d i n g s r e v e a l e d by the an a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e . In the s u c c e s s - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n , s e l f - e s t e e m was not r e l i a b l y c o r r e l a t e d with any of the dependent measures. However, i n the f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n , s e l f - e s t e e m was s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o r r e l a t e d with s e v e r a l of the dependent v a r i a b l e s ; s e l f - e s t e e m was p o s i t i v e l y and r e l i a b l y c o r r e l a t e d with i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s ( E l ) , f i r s t - t a s k performance ( P I ) , and second-task e x p e c t a t i o n s (E2). These c o r r e l a t i o n s p r o v i d e f u r t h e r evidence f o r asymmetrical self-esteem e f f e c t s under success and f a i l u r e c o n d i t i o n s ; i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - e s t e e m had a r e l a t i v e l y s t r o n g r e l a t i o n t o e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance under t h r e a t e n i n g c o n d i t i o n s , but was a l e s s u s e f u l p r e d i c t o r under nonthreatening c o n d i t i o n s . The p a t t e r n o f the c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n appeared t o attenuate both a c r o s s and w i t h i n t a s k s . That i s , the c o r r e l a t i o n s were more s u b s t a n t i a l on the f i r s t - t a s k measures ( E l and PI) than on the second-task measures (E2 and P2). I t a l s o appeared t h a t w i t h i n the f i r s t task the c o r r e l a t i o n was more s u b s t a n t i a l f o r measures taken e a r l i e r ( E l vs P I ) . Self-esteem was p o s i t i v e l y and r e l i a b l y c o r r e l a t e d with p e r c e p t i o n s o f second-task performance (PP2) o n l y i n the c o n t r o l 58 c o n d i t i o n . T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t the s e l f - e s t e e m main e f f e c t o b t ained on PP2 was p r i m a r i l y due to s u b j e c t s i n the c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n . The c o r r e l a t i o n of PP2 with s e l f - e s t e e m was a l s o p o s i t i v e i n the success and f a i l u r e c o n d i t i o n s , but not as s u b s t a n t i a l as i n the c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n . 59 D i s c u s s i o n The primary purpose of the present study was to examine i f the e f f e c t s of a h y p o t h e t i c a l s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e e x p l a n a t i o n m a nipulation would g e n e r a l i z e t o performance on r e l a t e d , but unexplained, t a s k s . Two d i f f e r e n t types of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n were i n v e s t i g a t e d . The second purpose was t o i n v e s t i g a t e the mediating r o l e of s e l f - e s t e e m i n the above mentioned processes. Before a d d r e s s i n g these i s s u e s , however, i t i s worth n o t i n g b r i e f l y t h a t s e v e r a l f i n d i n g s of the present study r e p l i c a t e some important r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d i n pr e v i o u s s t u d i e s . R e p l i c a t i o n s of Previo u s R e s u l t s E x p l a n a t i o n e f f e c t s on performance. Generating h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r success and f a i l u r e on a s p e c i f i c task s t r o n g l y a f f e c t e d subsequent e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance on t h a t task. T h i s f i n d i n g r e p l i c a t e s the r e s u l t s o f the Sherman et a l . (1981, study 1) and the Campbell and F a i r e y (1985) experiments. R e l a t i v e t o a c o n t r o l (no-explanation) group, s u b j e c t s who ex p l a i n e d a h y p o t h e t i c a l f a i l u r e not only expected to perform worse, but a c t u a l l y d i d perform worse; s u b j e c t s who exp l a i n e d a h y p o t h e t i c a l success not onl y expected to perform b e t t e r , but a c t u a l l y d i d perform b e t t e r . These th r e e s t u d i e s taken together s t r o n g l y support the n o t i o n t h a t people w i l l not only make an i n f e r e n t i a l l e a p from p o s s i b i l i t y ( h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n ) to p r o b a b i l i t y ( e x p e c t a t i o n ) , but a l s o from p r o b a b i l i t y to a c t u a l i t y (performance). That i s , merely c o n s i d e r i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y of a p a r t i c u l a r s e l f - r e l e v a n t outcome and the reasons i t would come about makes outcome-congruent reasons 60 d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e . T h i s i n c r e a s e d a v a i l a b i l i t y of c o g n i t i o n s congruent with the d e s i r e d outcome a f f e c t s b e l i e f s and behavior i n the d i r e c t i o n of a s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g prophecy. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , a m o t i v a t i o n a l r a t h e r than a c o g n i t i v e approach c o u l d be used t o e x p l a i n the f i n d i n g mentioned above. That i s , s u b j e c t s may have been motivated t o appear p u b l i c l y c o n s i s t e n t ; s u b j e c t s who claimed that they expected t o perform p o o r l y on the f i r s t task may have attempted t o maintain p u b l i c c o n s i s t e n c y by pu r p o s e l y performing p o o r l y on the task. However, the p u b l i c c o n s i s t e n c y e x p l a n a t i o n seems l e s s p l a u s i b l e i n the present s i t u a t i o n given t h a t the " c o n s i s t e n t " behavior i s i n d i r e c t o p p o s i t i o n t o the motive t o appear s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e ( c f . Aronson & C a r l s m i t h , 1962). Process,. The present study a l s o provided some evidence c o n s i s t e n t with Campbell and F a i r e y ' s (1985) argument t h a t the impact of the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation on performance i s not completely mediated by i t s impact on e x p e c t a t i o n s . T h i s appears to be t r u e d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t when people do not form t a s k - s p e c i f i c e x p e c t a n c i e s f o l l o w i n g the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation, the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation does not e x e r t c o n s i s t e n t e f f e c t s on performance (Sherman e t a l . , 1981; Campbell and F a i r e y , 1985). R e s u l t s from both the c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s es and the a n a l y s i s of co v a r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t the e x p l a n a t i o n m a n i p u l a t i o n exerted r e l i a b l e e f f e c t s on f i r s t - t a s k performance t h a t were independent of i t s e f f e c t s on i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s . That i s , the d i f f e r e n t i a l a v a i l a b i l i t y i n memory of reasons f o r su c c e s s versus f a i l u r e appears t o p e r s i s t beyond 61 the formation of e x p e c t a t i o n s to e x e r t an a d d i t i o n a l e f f e c t d u r i n g task performance i t s e l f . On the o t h e r hand, when no e x p e c t a t i o n i s formed these c o g n i t i o n s are not made r e l e v a n t to the s p e c i f i c task a t hand, and thus have l i t t l e impact on performance. C o n s i s t e n t with t h i s argument was the f a c t t h a t i n both the present study and the Campbell and F a i r e y (1985) study, e x p e c t a t i o n s were more h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d with performance among s u b j e c t s who had generated e x p l a n a t i o n s . One i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s p a t t e r n i s t h a t the d i f f e r e n t i a l c o g n i t i o n s e l i c i t e d by the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation not only a f f e c t e x p e c t a t i o n s , but a l s o remain a v a i l a b l e and operate to keep performance i n l i n e with those e x p e c t a t i o n s . That i s , the d i f f e r e n t i a l c o g n i t i o n s are common antecedents to both i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance, and thus a c t to keep the two more c l o s e l y l i n k e d . When ex p l a n a t i o n s have not been generated, and s u b j e c t s are asked to s t a t e e x p e c t a n c i e s , i t seems p l a u s i b l e t h a t l i t t l e or no review of past performance or a t t r i b u t i o n a l a c t i v i t y takes p l a c e ; s u b j e c t s simply g i v e t h e i r s t e r e o t y p i c a l g e n e r a l e x p e c t a n c i e s . Such g e n e r a l , s t e r e o t y p i c a l e x p e c t a n c i e s have been shown to have l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p with subsequent task performance (e.g., Zuckerman, 1979). Self-esteem. The s e l f - e s t e e m e f f e c t s o b t a i n e d by Campbell and F a i r e y (1985) were a l s o r e p l i c a t e d here. I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - e s t e e m mediated the e f f e c t s of the h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation on e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance. In both s t u d i e s , LSE s u b j e c t s e x h i b i t e d 62 s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance (on the i n i t i a l task) than d i d HSE s u b j e c t s i n the f a i l u r e - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n , but t h e r e were no r e l i a b l e s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x p e c t a t i o n s or performance i n the s u c c e s s - e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n . There were a l s o s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n the content of the f a i l u r e e x p l a n a t i o n s ; LSE s u b j e c t s gave a l a r g e r percentage of c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l reasons f o r f a i l u r e than d i d HSE s u b j e c t s . These data, i n c o n j u n c t i o n with other s t u d i e s noted i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n , support the n o t i o n t h a t t h e r e i s an asymmetry with r e s p e c t to the impact of s e l f - e s t e e m on r e a c t i o n s to success and f a i l u r e . The asymmetry hy p o t h e s i s s t a t e s t h a t the e f f e c t s of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e l f - e s t e e m are asymmetrical a c r o s s success and f a i l u r e c o n d i t i o n s ; s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance are more pronounced under f a i l u r e c o n d i t i o n s than under success c o n d i t i o n s . T h i s asymmetry i n performance i s perhaps d e r i v e d from a s i m i l a r asymmetry with r e s p e c t to s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x p l a n a t o r y s t y l e f o r negative and p o s i t i v e events. Low s e l f - e s t e e m people w i l l c o n s i s t e n t l y r e l y more on c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s to e x p l a i n negative outcomes than w i l l HSE people; e x p l a n a t o r y s t y l e s f o r p o s i t i v e events t y p i c a l l y e x h i b i t the o p p o s i t e p a t t e r n , but the s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s are l e s s pronounced. G e n e r a l i z a t i o n Immediate unexplained t a s k . R e s u l t s of the present study supported the n o t i o n t h a t an e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation would g e n e r a l i z e t o an unexplained, but r e l a t e d , task performed immediately f o l l o w i n g the e l i c i t a t i o n of e x p l a n a t i o n s and 63 e x p e c t a t i o n s , but they d i d not support the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the e f f e c t s would p e r s i s t and a f f e c t performance on an u n r e l a t e d subsequent t a s k . The e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation ( i n c o n j u n c t i o n with self-esteem) had h i g h l y comparable e f f e c t s on f i r s t - t a s k performance r e g a r d l e s s of whether s u b j e c t s worked on the task f o r which e x p l a n a t i o n s and e x p e c t a t i o n s had been generated (RAT) or on a d i f f e r e n t , but r e l a t e d , task (anagram). In accounting f o r t h i s g e n e r a l i z a t i o n e f f e c t i t i s important to c o n s i d e r the content of the e x p l a n a t i o n s . Although s u b j e c t s o f t e n gave r a t h e r s p e c i f i c t a s k - r e l a t e d reasons i n t h e i r e x p l a n a t i o n s , they a l s o i n c l u d e d reasons t h a t were more general i n nature. Some r e l a t e d to v e r b a l t a s k s i n g e n e r a l , such as good/poor v e r b a l a b i l i t y and o t h e r s were extremely g e n e r a l , such as c h r o n i c emotional responses to evaluation/performance s i t u a t i o n s . The d i f f e r e n t i a l a v a i l a b l i t y of those more general reasons f o r success and f a i l u r e a p p a r e n t l y p e r s i s t e d i n a f f e c t i n g performance on a task t h a t was r e l a t e d , but not i d e n t i c a l , t o the one used to e l i c i t e x p l a n a t i o n s and e x p e c t a t i o n s . Whether or not an e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation would a f f e c t performance on immediately performed t a s k s t h a t are more di v e r g e n t from the e x p l a i n e d task i s an unresolved i s s u e . I t i s a l s o unknown t o what extent the present g e n e r a l i z a t i o n e f f e c t may have been due to s p e c i f i c a l l y t e l l i n g s u b j e c t s t h a t the two t a s k s were h i g h l y r e l a t e d . Subsequent t a s k . In c o n t r a s t , t h e r e was no support f o r the second type of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . The e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation d i d 64 not a f f e c t s u b j e c t s ' performance on a second r e l a t e d , but unexplained, task undertaken a f t e r performance experience on the f i r s t t ask. That i s , the e f f e c t s of the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation d i d not g e n e r a l i z e over time d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d no d i r e c t feedback r e g a r d i n g t h e i r performance on the f i r s t t a s k . T h i s r e s u l t i s i n d i r e c t c o n t r a s t t o the f i n d i n g s of Sherman e t a l . (1981, study 2 ) . In t h a t study, s u b j e c t s who e x p l a i n e d a h y p o t h e t i c a l s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e f o r the anagram task performed better/worse on the subsequent word generation task d e s p i t e the i n t e r v e n i n g anagram task performance and the manipulated s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e feedback t h a t was, f o r h a l f of the s u b j e c t s , o p p o s i t e i n valence t o the e x p l a n a t i o n s . There are s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between t h i s study and the Sherman et a l . (1981, study 2) study t h a t might account f o r the d i s c r e p a n t r e s u l t s . One p o s s i b l e reason f o r the opposing r e s u l t s has to do with the type of t a s k s t h a t were used i n the two s t u d i e s . Although both s t u d i e s used as the second task the i d e n t i c a l word g e n e r a t i o n task, they d i f f e r e d with r e s p e c t t o the task used i n the e x p l a n a t i o n m a n i p u l a t i o n . In the Sherman et a l . study, s u b j e c t s wrote e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r a h y p o t h e t i c a l anagram performance, whereas i n the present study they wrote e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r a h y p o t h e t i c a l RAT performance. I t co u l d be argued t h a t anagram t a s k s are more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d i n terms of performance components ( i . e . , manipulating l e t t e r s of a word) to word g e n e r a t i o n t a s k s than are t a s k s t h a t i n v o l v e the r e t r i e v a l of word a s s o c i a t e s (the RAT). I f t h i s were t r u e , i t would be more l i k e l y t h a t h y p o t h e t i c a l anagram e x p l a n a t i o n s would 65 g e n e r a l i z e t o word g e n e r a t i o n performance than would h y p o t h e t i c a l RAT e x p l a n a t i o n s . Indeed, i n the present study, the c o r r e l a t i o n between performance on the word genera t i o n and the anagram t a s k s was higher than the c o r r e l a t i o n between the word g e n e r a t i o n task and the RAT (r = .63 vs r = .29; z = 2.53, p_< .02) . Although these c o r r e l a t i o n s are c o n s i s t e n t with a "task o v e r l a p " e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the d i s c r e p a n t r e s u l t s , i t i s important to keep i n mind t h a t e x p l a n a t i o n s generated f o r the RAT d i d have a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t impact on anagram performance when the anagram task was performed immediately a f t e r the e x p l a n a t i o n m a n i p u l a t i o n . The f a c t t h a t the RAT e x p l a n a t i o n g e n e r a l i z e d so r e a d i l y to immediate anagram performance i m p l i e s t h a t the RAT i s not so u n r e l a t e d t o " l e t t e r manipulation t a s k s " as to be n e c e s s a r i l y i n e f f e c t i v e . T h e r e f o r e , although the d i f f e r e n c e i n the type of task used i n the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation i s a p o s s i b l e reason f o r the d i s c r e p a n t r e s u l t s (and the l a c k of a present g e n e r a l i z a t i o n e f f e c t ) , i t i s not n e c e s s a r i l y the most p e r s u a s i v e . A second p o s s i b l e reason f o r the d i s c r e p a n t r e s u l t s has to do with the number and s p e c i f i c i t y of e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a t s u b j e c t s formed. Sherman et a l . r e q u i r e d t h e i r s u b j e c t s to form only one general e x p e c t a t i o n ( i . e , f o r the "upcoming word tasks") a f t e r w r i t i n g e x p l a n a t i o n s and before s t a r t i n g the f i r s t task. In c o n t r a s t , the present study r e q u i r e d s u b j e c t s t o form two e x p e c t a t i o n s ; a s p e c i f i c i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n f o r the RAT ( e l i c i t e d a f t e r the e x p l a n a t i o n s but be f o r e f i r s t - t a s k performance) and a second s p e c i f i c e x p e c t a t i o n f o r the word 66 g e n e r a t i o n task ( e l i c i t e d a f t e r f i r s t - t a s k performance). The t h e o r e t i c a l process assumed to u n d e r l i e the e f f e c t s of h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s on subsequent performance i s a v a i l a b i l i t y . However, d i f f e r e n t i a l a v a i l a b l i t y of s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e - r e l a t e d c o g n i t i o n s does not, i n i t s e l f , produce d i f f e r e n c e s i n subsequent performance. As noted by both Sherman et a l . (1981) and Campbell and F a i r e y (1985), the c o g n i t i o n s made d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a v a i l a b l e by the manipulation must be " c o n s o l i d a t e d " or "made r e l e v a n t " to an upcoming performance by the e x p l i c i t f ormation o f e x p e c t a t i o n s . When e x p e c t a t i o n s are not e l i c i t e d , the h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n appears t o remain j u s t t h a t , " h y p o t h e t i c a l " . One must assume t h a t when the present s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d to form a new, s p e c i f i c expectancy f o r the second task the same a v a i l a b i l i t y process a p p l i e d . In searc h i n g memory f o r in f o r m a t i o n to help them make t h i s second judgment, s u b j e c t s u t i l i z e d the i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t was most r e c e n t l y a v a i l a b l e . In t h i s case, p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r performance on the f i r s t task would be h i g h l y a v a i l a b l e . Because s u b j e c t s had been t o l d t h a t the t a s k s were h i g h l y r e l a t e d , they would have been aware t h a t t h e i r performance on the f i r s t task was a p o t e n t i a l l y u s e f u l source of i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g how they might expect to perform on the next t a s k . The s p e c i f i c c o g n i t i o n s generated e a r l i e r by the e x p l a n a t i o n task might, of course, a l s o be r e l a t i v e l y a v a i l a b l e , but c e r t a i n l y t o a much l e a s e r degree than they were when i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s were formed. These h i g h l y a v a i l a b l e p e r c e p t i o n s of f i r s t - t a s k performance 67 would, of course, be a f f e c t e d by the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation ( r e c a l l t h a t the manipulation had a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on a c t u a l f i r s t - t a s k performance). They would a l s o , however, be a f f e c t e d by i d i o s y n c r a t i c standards f o r c o n s i d e r i n g / e v a l u a t i n g performance and by i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n i n a c t u a l performance w i t h i n the e x p l a n a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s ( i . e . , e r r o r ) . T h i s combination of an e x p l a n a t i o n i n d u c e d / i d i o s y n c r a t i c component appeared t o r e s u l t i n the manipulation having (a) a b a r e l y r e l i a b l e e f f e c t on second-task e x p e c t a t i o n s and (b) no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on second-task performance. I f one accepts the p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d argument t h a t the e f f e c t of the manipulation on performance i s not completely mediated by e x p e c t a t i o n s , then i t appears t h a t the a t t e n u a t i o n of the e f f e c t over time was due to the f a c t t h a t (a) the d i f f e r e n t i a l c o g n i t i o n s e l i c i t e d by the manipulation became l e s s s a l i e n t over time and (b) the formation of a new e x p e c t a t i o n increased the s a l i e n c e of i d i o s y n c r a t i c v a r i a t i o n on f i r s t - t a s k performance. In the Sherman e t a l . study, no new e x p e c t a n c i e s were e l i c i t e d from s u b j e c t s a f t e r f i r s t - t a s k performance. Thus, t h e r e was no need f o r s u b j e c t s t o c o n s i d e r t h e i r previous performance and use t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n t o judge the l i k e l i h o o d of t h e i r performing w e l l or poorly on the second task. Although s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e i r f i r s t - t a s k performance would have been a v a i l a b l e , they would have had l i t t l e i n f l u e n c e on subsequent performance because, as noted above, a v a i l a b i l i t y of d i f f e r e n t c o g n i t i o n s by i t s e l f i s not s u f f i c i e n t to a f f e c t subsequent performance. 68 In summary, the f a c t o r s mentioned above p r o v i d e a reasonable and compelling argument f o r why the e f f e c t s of the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation i n the present study d i d not g e n e r a l i z e over time whereas they d i d i n the Sherman et a l . (1981, study 2) study. A d d i t i o n a l Self-Esteem E f f e c t s As noted e a r l i e r , the present study r e p l i c a t e s the s e l f - e s t e e m e f f e c t s r e p o r t e d by Campbell and F a i r e y (1985) on f i r s t - t a s k e x p e c t a t i o n s , f i r s t - t a s k performance, and content of the e x p l a n a t i o n s . There were, however, some a d d i t i o n a l s e l f - e s t e e m e f f e c t s t h a t should be noted. Although both LSE and HSE s u b j e c t s ' e x p e c t a t i o n s dropped from t i m e l ( f i r s t task) to time2 (second t a s k ) , HSE s u b j e c t s d i s p l a y e d a more pronounced drop. S t a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y , HSE s u b j e c t s e x h i b i t e d h i g h e r f i r s t - t a s k e x p e c t a t i o n s than d i d LSE s u b j e c t s , but a f t e r working on the f i r s t task the two groups d i d not d i f f e r i n t h e i r second-task e x p e c t a t i o n s . In accounting f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n t i a l decrease i n e x p e c t a t i o n s , s e v e r a l f a c t o r s are worth n o t i n g . F i r s t , the higher i n i t i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s of HSE s u b j e c t s r e p r e s e n t s a w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t (e.g., Zuckerman, 1979). Indeed, s e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s examining the e f f e c t of e x p e c t a t i o n s on performance have used s e l f - e s t e e m s c o r e s as a s u r r o g a t e measure of d i f f e r e n c e s i n g e n e r a l i z e d e x p e c t a n c i e s (Shrauger, 1975). Second, t h e r e were no r e l a t e d s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n f i r s t - t a s k performance. T h i r d , the two f i r s t - t a s k t e s t s were ones which would e a s i l y allow s u b j e c t s to a s c e r t a i n g e n e r a l l y how w e l l they had performed d e s p i t e the l a c k of performance feedback. That i s , on the 15-item anagram 69 test, s u b j e c t s would know g e n e r a l l y how many they had answered c o r r e c t l y ; both LSE and HSE s u b j e c t s answered, on average, SOX c o r r e c t l y . S i m i l a r l y , on the 12-item RAT, i t was easy f o r s u b j e c t s t o know i f they had indeed r e t r i e v e d a word t h a t was a s s o c i a t e d with a l l three task words; both LSE and HSE s u b j e c t s r e t r i e v e d , on average, 50* of the words. In s h o r t , both groups e x h i b i t e d performance l e v e l s t h a t most c o l l e g e students would view as r e p r e s e n t i n g only a moderate l e v e l of performance. F i n a l l y , i n g i v i n g the second-task e x p e c t a t i o n s , both groups knew they would be working on the word g e n e r a t i o n task and t h a t t h i s task was " h i g h l y r e l a t e d " t o the f i r s t t ask. In s h o r t , LSE s u b j e c t s gave moderate f i r s t - t a s k e x p e c t a t i o n s , e x h i b i t e d moderate f i r s t - t a s k performance and indeed gave moderate second-task e x p e c t a t i o n s . In c o n t r a s t , HSE s u b j e c t s gave s t e r e o t y p i c a l l y high f i r s t - t a s k e x p e c t a t i o n s , but e x h i b i t e d o n l y moderate f i r s t - t a s k performance. Knowing t h a t they were a c t u a l l y going t o work on the " h i g h l y r e l a t e d " word ge n e r a t i o n task ( i . e . , performance c o u l d be v e r i f i e d ) , they moderated t h e i r second-task e x p e c t a t i o n s . T h i s moderation of the HSE s u b j e c t s ' second-task e x p e c t a t i o n s appears t o be i n d i r e c t c o n f l i c t with p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h . For example, M c F a r l i n and B l a s c o v i c h (1981) r e p o r t e d t h a t , even a f t e r having r e c e i v e d f a i l u r e feedback on a p r e v i o u s task, HSE s u b j e c t s ' e x p e c t a t i o n s remained s t e r e o t y p i c a l l y high when they were asked to g i v e e x p e c t a t i o n r a t i n g s f o r a subsequent t a s k . However, u n l i k e the present study where s u b j e c t s were e x p r e s s l y t o l d t h a t the t a s k s were h i g h l y r e l a t e d . 70 the s u b j e c t s i n M c F a r l i n and B l a s c o v i c h ' s study were e x p l i c i t l y t o l d t h a t the two t a s k s were u n r e l a t e d . I t t h e r e f o r e appears t h a t , when HSE s u b j e c t s a re aware t h a t two ta s k s are not r e l a t e d , they maintain c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y high e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r performance on a second task d e s p i t e f a i l u r e on a p r e v i o u s one. However, when they are aware t h a t two t a s k s are r e l a t e d and are asked to form p e r s o n a l judgments r e g a r d i n g f i r s t - t a s k performance, they modify t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r a second task so as t o be more i n l i n e with " r e a l i t y " . Whether they a c t u a l l y h o l d lower e x p e c t a t i o n s , o r whether they simply s t a t e lower e x p e c t a t i o n s t o prevent a l o s s of f a c e t h a t might occur due to a discr e p a n c y between p r e d i c t e d and a c t u a l performance remains an unanswered q u e s t i o n . A second r e s u l t worth n o t i n g i s t h a t although t h e r e were no se l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n (a) f i r s t - t a s k performance, <b) pe r c e p t i o n s of f i r s t - t a s k performance, <c) second-task e x p e c t a t i o n s , and <d) second-task performance, t h e r e were s u b s t a n t i a l s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n f i r s t - t a s k e x p e c t a t i o n s ( d e s c r i b e d above) and p e r c e p t i o n s of second-task performance (PP2). T h i s s e l f - e s t e e m main e f f e c t on PP2 was s t i l l present even when the e f f e c t s o f p r e v i o u s responses were s t a t i s t i c a l l y removed u s i n g an ANCOVA procedure. In i n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s re-emergence of a s e l f - e s t e e m e f f e c t on p e r c e p t i o n s of second-task performance i t i s important t o c o n s i d e r the c o n d i t i o n s under which r e a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s operate on one's p e r c e p t i o n s o f , or a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r , performance. F i r s t , r e a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s a r e lessened when one does not 71 a c t u a l l y have t o engage i n f u t u r e performance. I f th e r e l a no way f o r o t h e r a o r o n e a e l f t o v e r i f y f u t u r e performance, i t i a e a s i e r to d i s t o r t one's p e r c e p t i o n s about pres e n t or paat performance. At the time s u b j e c t s were asked about t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f second-task performance, i t was apparent t h a t they would not be a c t u a l l y working on any f u r t h e r t a s k s . The time l i m i t f o r the experiment was almost up and the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t s e l f was l a b e l l e d "post-experimental q u e s t i o n n a i r e " . Thus, i f HSE s u b j e c t s no longer a n t i c i p a t e d f u t u r e e v a l u a t i o n t h e r e would be l e s s reason f o r them to be " r e a l i s t i c " or c a u t i o u s i n t h e i r p u b l i c p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e i r performance. They were i n no danger of r i s k i n g a l o s s of se l f - e s t e e m because t h e r e was no chance of f u r t h e r e v a l u a t i o n t o ch a l l e n g e t h e i r p e c e p t i o n s of t h e i r a b i l i t y (Zuckerman, 1979). Second, t h e r e are fewer r e a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s on p e r c e p t i o n s of performance when th e r e are no o b j e c t i v e standards by which t o judge the performance. The three t a s k s i n the present study d i f f e r e d with r e s p e c t t o s u b j e c t i v i t y of standa r d s . As noted e a r l i e r , both the RAT and the anagram task p r o v i d e f a i r l y w e l l d e f i n e d s t a n d a r d s f o r judging performance ( s u b j e c t s could make a rough e s t i m a t e o f percentage c o r r e c t ) . T h i s was not tr u e f o r the word g e n e r a t i o n task; s u b j e c t s would have l i t t l e idea of how many words c o n s t i t u t e d a good performance. Thus, i t was probably e a s i e r t o d i s t o r t p e r c e p t i o n s of performance on the word g e n e r a t i o n t a s k , than on e i t h e r the RAT or the anagram task. That i s , on the word genera t i o n task t h e r e are l e s s w e l l d e f i n e d standards by which t o ev a l u a t e performance, and t h i s 72 c o u l d allow s t e r e o t y p i c a l s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s to emerge. T h i s re-emergence of a s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e i s i n t e r e s t i n g because i t r a i s e s the i s s u e of temporal s t a b i l i t y of s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s i n g e n e r a l i z e d ( s t e r e o t y p i c a l ) performance e x p e c t a n c i e s , and the q u e s t i o n of how these g e n e r a l i z e d performance expectancies are maintained over time d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t no a c t u a l performance d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t between HSE and LSE s u b j e c t s . As suggested above, sooner or l a t e r people work on something t h a t i s not s u b j e c t to r e a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s whether i t be a task t h a t has no o b j e c t i v e standards or one t h a t e n t a i l s no f u r t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y of e v a l u a t i o n , and t h i s most l i k e l y a l l o w s s t e r e o t y p i c a l s e l f - e s t e e m d i f f e r e n c e s to be maintained over time. Future D i r e c t i o n s In order to r e s o l v e the c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s of t h i s study and those of Sherman e t a l . (1981, study 2) with r e s p e c t to the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n e f f e c t s over time, a new study i s p r e s e n t l y under way. The new study employs the same t a s k s used by Sherman e t a l . (1981). Subj e c t s generate s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e e x p l a n a t i o n s , s t a t e e x p e c t a t i o n s , and perform on an anagram ta s k ; the second-task performance takes p l a c e on a word g e n e r a t i o n t a s k . Thus, i f the l a c k of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i n the present r e s u l t s was due t o the f a c t t h a t the task i n v o l v e d i n the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation was not s t r o n g l y enough r e l a t e d t o the task used f o r second-task performance, one would a n t i c i p a t e t h a t the e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation would g e n e r a l i z e to second-task performance i n the new study. Of g r e a t e r import, i s 73 the e x p l i c i t m a nipulation of whether or not s u b j e c t s s t a t e second-task e x p e c t a n c i e s b e f o r e working on the second t a s k . H a l f of the s u b j e c t s are asked to form e x p l i c i t performance e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r the second task while the other h a l f do not. T h e r e f o r e , i f the f a i l u r e of the present e x p l a n a t i o n manipulation to g e n e r a l i z e to second-task performance was due to the formation of new e x p e c t a t i o n s , one would a n t i c i p a t e t h a t i n the new study g e n e r a l i z a t i o n w i l l occur i f no new e x p e c t a t i o n s are formed f o r the second task, but w i l l not occur i f new e x p e c t a t i o n s are e x p l i c i t l y formed. H o p e f u l l y , t h i s new study should r e s o l v e the c o n t r a d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s of the present study and the Sherman e t a l . study. F i n a l l y , i t i s important to address the a p p l i e d s i g n i f i c a n c e of the present f i n d i n g s . Because e x p l a i n i n g a h y p o t h e t i c a l success had a p o s i t i v e and s u b s t a n t i a l impact on s u b j e c t s ' f i r s t - t a s k e x p e c t a t i o n s and performance but not on t h e i r subsequent task performance, i t appears t h a t the e l i c i t a t i o n of p o s i t i v e p r e b e h a v i o r a l c o g n i t i o n s may not be not an e f f e c t i v e long-term s t r a t e g y f o r t r e a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s with c h r o n i c low expectancies (e.g., low s e l f - e s t e e m , low achievement, shy, depressed). However, the r e s u l t s concerning f i r s t - t a s k performance suggest t h a t the e l i c i t a t i o n of p o s i t i v e p r e b e h a v i o r a l c o g n i t i o n s immediately before s t a r t i n g a task may have a b e n e f i c i a l short-term e f f e c t on performance. Thus te a c h i n g people to generate reasons f o r why they might succeed on a task j u s t p r i o r t o engaging i n the task may prove to be a u s e f u l s t r a t e g y f o r improving immediate performance, e s p e c i a l l y 74 a f t e r exposure t o p r i o r f a i l u r e . However, any long-term e f f e c t s w i l l most l i k e l y r e q u i r e a more d r a s t i c or i n t e n s i v e treatment approach such as r e a t t r i b u t i o n t r a i n i n g . As Dweck (1975) demonstrated with " h e l p l e s s " c h i l d r e n , exposure to success treatments a l o n e does not r e s u l t i n long-term performance improvements, but t r a i n i n g to a t t r i b u t e f a i l u r e to n o n c h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s such as e f f o r t does lead to maintained or improved performance a f t e r f a i l u r e . Thus, i t seems t h a t f o r any treatment to have long-term performance b e n e f i t s f o r people with low s e l f - e s t e e m , a r e s t r u c t u r i n g of t h e i r c o g n i t i v e r e a c t i o n s to f a i l u r e i s necessary. However, p o s i t i v e p r e b e h a v i o r a l c o g n i t i o n s may a i d the r e s t r u c t u r i n g process by p r o v i d i n g i n d i v i d u a l s with a short-term s t r a t e g y to improve performance while they undergo r e a t t r i b u t i o n t r a i n i n g . \ 75 References Abelson, R. P. (1959). Modes of r e s o l u t i o n of b e l i e f dilemmas. C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n . 3, 343-352. Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teaadale, J . D. (1978). Learned h e l p l e s s n e s s i n humans: C r i t i q u e and r e f o r m u l a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology. 87. 49-74. Anderson, C. A. (1983). M o t i v a t i o n a l and performance d e f i c i t s i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l s e t t i n g s : The e f f e c t s of a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 45. 1136-1147. Anderson, C. A., Horowitz, L. M., & French, R. (1983). A t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e of l o n e l y and depressed people. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 45. 127-123. Anderson, C. A., Lepper, M. R., & Ross, L. (1980). The perseverance of s o c i a l t h e o r i e s : The r o l e of e x p l a n a t i o n i n the p e r s i s t e n c e of d i s c r e d i t e d i n f o r m a t i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 39. 1037-1049. Anderson, C. A., & S e c h l e r , E. S. (1986). E f f e c t s of e x p l a n a t i o n and c o u n t e r - e x p l a n a t i o n on the development and use o f s o c i a l t h e o r i e s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. A r c h i b a l d , W. P. (1974). A l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g prophesy. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 81. 74-84. Aronson, C. A., & C a r l s m i t h , J . M. (1962). Performance expectancy as a determinant of a c t u a l performance. J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology. 65. 178-182. Brockner, J . (1979). The e f f e c t s of s e l f - e s t e e m , s u c c e s s - f a i l u r e , and s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s on task performance. Jo u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 37. 1732-1741. 76 Bruner, J . S., & P o t t e r , M . C. (1964). I n t e r f e r e n c e In v i s u a l r e c o g n i t i o n . S c i e n c e . 144, 424-425. Campbell, J . D. (1984). Self-esteem d i f f e r e n c e s i n the u t i l i z a t i o n o f s e l f p r o t e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . Unpublished manuscript, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Campbell, J . D., & F a i r e y , P. J . (1985). E f f e c t s of s e l f - e s t e e m , h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s , and v e r b a l i z a t i o n s of expectancies on f u t u r e performance. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 48. 1097-1111. C a r r o l l , J . S. (1978). The e f f e c t s of imagining an event on e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r the event: An i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n terms of the a v a i l a b i l i t y h e u r i s t i c . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 36. 1501-1511. Chapman, L., & Chapman, J . (1967). The g e n e s i s of popular but erroneous p s y c h o d i a g n o s t i c o b s e r v a t i o n s . J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology. 72. 193-204. Cohen, A. R. (1959). Some i m p l i c a t i o n s of s e l f - e s t e e m f o r s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e . In I. L. J a n i s , C. Houlard, & I. J a n i s (Eds.), P e r s o n a l i t y and p e r s u a a i b i l i t y (pp. 102-120). New haven, CT: Yale U n i v e r s i t y p r e s s . Cohen, C. E. (1981). Person c a t e g o r i e s and s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n : T e s t i n g some boundaries of the p r o c c e a s i n g e f f e c t s of p r i o r knowledge. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 40. 441-452. Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of s e l f - e s t e e m . San F r a n c i s c o : Freeman. DePaulo, B., Brown, P., I s h i i , S., & F i s h e r , J . (1981). Help 77 t h a t works: The e f f e c t s of a i d on subsequent task performance. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 41_, 478-487. Oiener, C. I . , & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An a n a l y s i s of l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s : Continuous changes i n performance, s t r a t e g y , and achievement c o g n i t i o n s f o l l o w i n g f a i l u r e . J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 32. 1077-1084. Dweck, C. S. (1975). The r o l e o f e x p e c t a t i o n s and a t t r i b u t i o n s i n the a l l e v i a t i o n of l e a r n e d h e l p l e s s n e s s . J o u r n a l o f  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 31. 574-685. Dweck, C. S., & G i l l i a r d , D. (1975). Expectancy statements as determinants of r e a c t i o n s t o f a i l u r e : Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s i s t e n c e and expectancy change. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y  and S o c i a l Psychology, 32. 1077-1084. Feather, N.T. (1983). Some c o r r e l a t e s of a t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e : D epressive symptoms, s e l f - e s t e e m , and p r o t e s t a n t e t h i c v a l u e s . P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology B u l l e t i n , 9, 125-135. F i s c h h o f f , B. (1975). H i n d s i g h t X f o r e s i g h t : The e f f e c t o f outcome knowledge on judgment under u n c e r t a i n t y . J o u r n a l o f  Experimental Psychology: Human P e r c e p t i o n and Performance. 1_, 288-299. F i s c h h o f f , B. (1977). P e r c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i v e n e s s of f a c t s . J o u r n a l o f Experimental Psychology: Human p e r c e p t i o n and Performance. 3, 349-358. F i s c h h o f f , B., & Beyth, R. (1975). "I knew i t would happen"-remembered p r o b a b i l i t i e s on o n c e - f u t u r e t h i n g s . 78 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Human Performance. 13. 1-16. Greenwald , A. G. (1980). The t o t a l i t a r i a n ego: F a b r i c a t i o n and r e v i s i o n of per s o n a l h i s t o r y . American P s y c h o l o g i s t . 35. 603-618. Gregory, W. L., C i a l d i n i , R. B., & Carpenter, K. M. (1982). S e l f - r e l e v a n t s c e n a r i o s as mediators o f l i k e l i h o o d e stimates and compliance: Does imagining make i t so?. J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 43. 89-99. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s . New York: Wiley. Helmreich, R., Stapp, J . , & E r v i n , C. (1974). The Texas S o c i a l Behavior Inventory (TSBI): An o b j e c t i v e measure of sel f - e s t e e m or s o c i a l competence. JSAS C a t a l o g o f S e l e c t e d  Documents i n S o c i a l Psychology. 4, 79 (Ms. No. 681). Hig g i n s , E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category a c c e s s i b i l i t y and impression f o r m a t i o n . J o u r n a l of  Experimental S o c i a l Psychology. 13, 141-154. Ickes, W., & Layden, M. A. (1978). A t t r i b u t i o n a l s t y l e s . In J . Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New d i r e c t i o n s i n  a t t r i b u t i o n a l r e s e a r c h ( V o l . 2, pp. 121-152). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). C h a r a c t e r o l o g i c a l versus b e h a v i o r a l s e l f - b l a m e : I n q u i r i e s i n t o d e p r e s s i o n and rape. J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 37, 1798-1809. Jennings, D. L., Lepper, M. R., & Ross, L. (1981). P e r s i s t e n c e of impressions o f p e r s o n a l p e r s u a s i v e n e s s . P e r s o n a l i t y and  S o c i a l Psychology B u l l e t i n . 7, 257-263. 79 Jones, S. C. (1973). S e l f - and i n t e r p e r s o n a l e v a l u a t i o n s : Esteem t h e o r i e s versus c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r i e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l  B u l l e t i n . 79. 185-199. Jones, E. E., & D a v i s , K. E. (1965). From a c t a t o d i s p o s i t i o n s : The a t t r i b u t i o n process i n person p e r c e p t i o n . In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n experimental s o c i a l psvchlogy ( V o l . 2, pp. 219-266). New York: Academic Press. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of p r e d i c t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. 80. 237-251. K e l l e y , H. H. (1967). A t t r i b u t i o n theory i n s o c i a l psychology. In D. L e v i n e (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on m o t i v a t i o n . L i n c o l n : U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska P r e s s . K i e s l e r , S., & B a r a l , R. (1970). The s e a r c h f o r a romantic p a r t n e r : The e f f e c t s of s e l f - e s t e e m on p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i v e n e s s . In K. Gergen & D. Marlowe (Eds.), P e r s o n a l i t y and s o c i a l behavior (pp. 155-165). Reading, MA: Add!son-Wesley, Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased a s s i m i l a t i o n and a t t i t u d e p o l a r i z a t i o n : The e f f e c t s of p r i o r t h e o r i e s on subsequently c o n s i d e r e d evidence. J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 37. 2098-2109. Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and p r o c e s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n about the s e l f . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology. 35. 63-78. M c F a r l i n , D. B., & B l a s c o v i c h , J . (1981). E f f e c t s of s e l f - e s t e e m and performance feedback on f u t u r e a f f e c t i v e p r e f e r e n c e s and c o g n i t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l 80 Psychology. 40. 521-531. N i s b e t t , R. , & Ross, L. (1980). Human i n f e r e n c e : S t r a t e g i e s and  shortcomings of s o c i a l mdgment. Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e - H a l l . Peterson, C , & Seligman, H. E. P. (1984). Causal e x p l a n a t i o n s as a r i s k f a c t o r f o r d e p r e s s i o n : Theory and evidence. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. 91. 347-374. Reis , H. T. (1982). An i n t r o d u c t i o n t o the use of s t r u c t u r a l e q u a t i o n s : Prospects and problems. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of p e r s o n a l i t y and s o c i a l psychology (pp. 255-287). Be v e r l y H i l l s , CA: Sage. Rogers, T. B. (1981). A model of the s e l f as an aspect o f the human i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g system. In N. Cantor & J . F. K i h l s t r o m ( E d s . ) , P e r s o n a l i t y , c o g n i t i o n , and s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n (pp. 193-214). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. Rogosa, D. (1979). Causal models i n l o n g i t u d i n a l r e s e a r c h : R a t i o n a l e , f o r m u l a t i o n , and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In J . R. Nesselroade & P. B. B a l t e s (Eds.), L o n g i t u d i n a l r e s e a r c h i n the study o f behavior and development (pp. 263-302). New York: Academic P r e s s . Rosenthal, R. (1974). On the s o c i a l psychology of the s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g prophecy: F u r t h e r evidence f o r Pygmalion e f f e c t s and t h e i r mediating mechanisms. New York: M. S. S. Information Corp. Modular P u b l i c a t i o n s . Ross, L. (1977). The i n t u i t i v e p s y c h o l o g i s t and h i s shortcomings: D i s t o r t i o n s i n the a t t r i b u t i o n p r o c e s s . In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n experimental s o c i a l psychology 81 ( V o l . 10, pp. 173-220). New York: Academic p r e s s . Ross, L. & Lepper, H. R. (1980). The perseverance of b e l i e f s : E m p i r i c a l and normative c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . In R. Sweder & D. F i s k e (Eds.), New d i r e c t i o n s f o r methodology of s o c i a l and  b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e : F a l l i b l e mdgments i n b e h a v i o r a l  r e s e a r c h (pp. 17-36). San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass. Ross, L., Lepper, N. R., & Hubbard, N. (1975). Perseverance i n s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n and s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n : Biased a t t r i b u t i o n a l processes i n the d e b r i e f i n g paradigm. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y  and S o c i a l Psychology. 32, 880-892. Ross, L., Lepper, N. R., S t r a c k , F., & Steinmetz, J . L. (1977). S o c i a l e x p l a n a t i o n and s o c i a l e x p e c t a t i o n : The e f f e c t s of r e a l and h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s upon s u b j e c t i v e l i k e l i h o o d . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 35. 817-829. Ro t t e r , J . B. (1954). S o c i a l l e a r n i n g and c l i n i c a l psychology. Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e H a l l . S a l a n c i k , G. R., & Conway, M. (1975). A t t i t u d e i n f e r e n c e s from s a l i e n t and r e l e v a n t c o g n i t i v e content about behavior. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 32. 829-841. Shaklee, H., & F i s c h h o f f , B. (1982). S t r a t e g i e s of i n f o r m a t i o n search i n c a u s a l a n a l y s i s . Memory and C o g n i t i o n . 10. 520-530. Sherman, S. T., C i a l d i n i , R. B., Schwartzmann, D. F., & Reynolds, K. D. (1985). Imagining can heighten or lower the pe r c e i v e d l i k e l i h o o d o f c o n t r a c t i n g a d i s e a s e : The mediating e f f e c t of ease of imagery. P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology 82 B u l l e t i n . 11. 118-127. Sherman, S. T., Skov, R. B., H e r v i t z , E. F., & Stock, C. B. (1981). The e f f e c t s of e x p l a i n i n g h y p o t h e t i c a l f u t u r e events: From p o s s i b i l i t y t o a c t u a l i t y and beyond. J o u r n a l o f Experimental S o c i a l Psychology. 17. 142-158. Sherman, S. T., Zehner, K. S., Johnson, J . , & H i r t , E. R. (1983). S o c i a l e x p l a n a t i o n : The r o l e o f t i m i n g , s e t , and r e c a l l on s u b j e c t i v e l i k e l i h o o d e s t i m a t e s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 44. 1127-1143. Shrauger, J . S. (1972). Self-esteem and r e a c t i o n s t o being observed by o t h e r s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 23. 192-200. Shrauger, J . S. (1975). Responses to e v a l u a t i o n as a f u n c t i o n o f i n i t i a l s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 82. 581-596. Shrauger, J . S., & Sorman, P. B. (1977). S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s , i n i t i a l s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e , and improvement as determinents of p e r s i s t e n c e . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l  Psychology. 45. 785-795. Snyder, H., & Cantor, N. (1979). T e s t i n g hypotheses about o t h e r people: The use of h i s t o r i c a l knowledge. J o u r n a l of  Experimental S o c i a l Psychology. 15. 330-342. Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. J r . (1978). B e h a v i o r a l c o n f i r m a t i o n i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n : From s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n t o s o c i a l r e a l i t y . J o u r n a l of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology. 14. 148-162. Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Beracheid, E. (1977). S o c i a l 83 p e r c e p t i o n and i n t e r p e r s o n a l b ehavior: On the s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g nature of s o c i a l s t e r e o t y p e s . J o u r n a l o f  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 35. 656-666. Snyder, H. & Uranowitz, S. W. (1978). R e c o n s t r u c t i n g the p a s t : Some c o g n i t i v e consequences o f person p e r c e p t i o n . J o u r n a l o f  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 36. 941-950. S r u l l , T. K., & Wyer, R. S. J r . (1979). The r o l e of category a c c e s s i b i l i t y i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n about persons: Some determinants and i m p l i c a t i o n s . J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 37. 1660-1672. Swann, W., & Read, S. (1981). When our i d e n t i t i e s are mistaken: How we s u s t a i n our s e l f - c o n c e p t i o n s . J o u r n a l of Experimental  S o c i a l Psychology. 17. 351-372. T a y l o r , S. E., & F i s k e , S. T. (1978). S a l i e n c e , a t t e n t i o n , and a t t r i b u t i o n : The top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n experimental s o c i a l psychology ( V o l . 11, pp. 249-288). New York: Academic p r e s s . Tesser, A., & Campbell, J . (1983). S e l f - d e f i n i t i o n and s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n maintenance. In J . S u l s & A. Greenwald (Eds.), S o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s on the s e l f ( V o l . 2, pp. 1-31). H i l l s d a l e NJ: Erlbaum. T e t l o c k , P. E., & L e v i , A. (1982). A t t r i b u t i o n b i a s : On the i n c o n c l u s i v e n e s s of the c o g n i t i o n - mo t i v a t i o n debate. J o u r n a l of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 18. 68-88, Weiner, B. (1974). An a t t r i b u t i o n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of expectancy-value theory. In B. Weiner (Ed.), C o g n i t i v e views  of human m o t i v a t i o n (pp. 51-59). New York: Academic P r e s s . Zuckerman, H. (1979). A t t r i b u t i o n of success and f a i l u r e r e v i s i t e d , o r : The m o t i v a t i o n a l b i a s i s a l i v e and w e l l a t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r y . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y . 47. 245-287 85 Footnotes ^Because the raw sc o r e s on the RAT, WG, and anagram t a s k s are not comparable, these s c o r e s were converted t o z-scores before a n a l y s i s . ^ P r e l i m i n a r y a n a l y s e s y i e l d e d no e f f e c t s f o r sex of s u b j e c t . ^ C o n t r a s t weights were +2 f o r LSE/success, +2 f o r HSE/success, -3 f o r L S E / f a i l u r e , -1 f o r H S E / f a i l u r e , and 0 f o r both no e x p l a n a t i o n groups. Note these same weights were used by Campbell and F a i r e y (1985), and they c o n t a i n both the main e f f e c t f o r e x p l a n a t i o n task and the E x p l a n a t i o n x Self-esteem i n t e r a c t i o n i n h e r e n t i n the asymmetry h y p o t h e s i s . ^Because the thr e e p r e d i c t o r s were s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d , i n d i v i d u a l Beta weights and s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s are not r e p o r t e d . When there i s m u l t i c o l i n e a r i t y among the p r e d i c t o r s . Beta weights are h i g h l y dependent on s a m p l e - s p e c i f i c v a r i a b i l i t y and are not p a r t i c u l a r l y i n f o r m a t i v e . ^These c o r r e l a t i o n s were not c a l c u l a t e d s e p a r a t e l y f o r HSE and LSE s u b j e c t s because w i t h i n - c e l l v a r i a t i o n s themselves r e p r e s e n t i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . In a d d i t i o n , such c o r r e l a t i o n s would be based on a c e l l s i z e of onl y 10. F i n a l l y , the ANOVA i n d i c a t e d t h a t these measures were c o r r e l a t e d with s e l f - e s t e e m i n some c e l l s of the design ( i . e . , f a i l u r e ) but not i n other c e l l s . Word T 87 I. D. # The next t h i n g you w i l l do i s the Remote A s s o c i a t e Test (RA t e s t ) . In the RA t e s t you are given t h r e e item words and your job i s to come up with a f o u r t h E n g l i s h word (answer) t h a t i s a s s o c i a t e d , i n some way, with a l l t h r e e o f the given item words. For example, i f g i v e n : B i r t h d a y - - S u r p r i s e - - D i n n e r the c o r r e c t f o u r t h word (answer) i s PARTY. On the f o l l o w i n g page i s a l i s t o f 12 RA items. You w i l l have 10 mintes t o generate as many c o r r e c t answers as you can. Try t o do the best you can. DO NOT TURN THE PAGE OVER UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO Remote A s s o c i a t e T e s t Item Answer s h e l f - r e a d - e n d sea-home-stomach car-swimming-cue c h o c o l a t e - f o r t u n e - t i n bass-complex-sleep d e s e r t - i c e - s p e l l inch-peg-deal shopping-washer-picture head-street-dark s t a l k - t r a i n e r - k i n g widow-bite-monkey red-go-car 89 I .D.# The next, t h i n g you w i l l do i s an anagram t a s k . In an anagram, a word i s taken and the l e t t e r s a re mixed up and rearranged. Your job i s to unscramble the l e t t e r s and make a common E n g l i s h word out of them. For example, NIDREN can be unscrambled t o form the word DINNER. On the f o l l o w i n g page i s a l i s t of 15 anagrams. You w i l l have 10 minutes t o s o l v e as many as you can. Try t o do the best you can. DO NOT TURN THE PAGE OVER UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO. ANAGRAMS VARBE SEMYS GOTHET ATHEW VAHEY CINIG HOTBO PPOCRE ONERSP KILERL FERIG RVAITI STUQE RAGUE YENAH 91 I .D.# The next t h i n g you w i l l do i s the Word Generation task (WG). In a WG task you are gi v e n an Original word from which you are to form as many E n g l i s h words, of fo u r of more l e t t e r s , as p o s s i b l e . For example, i f gi v e n the o r i g i n a l word INSPIRATIONAL you would form new words l i k e : RATIONAL, SPIRAL, NATION, NATIONAL, PRINT, SPIT, e t c . On the f o l l o w i n g page you are given three o r i g i n a l words and f o r each word you are to generate as many new words, of FOUR or MORE l e t t e r s , as you can. You w i l l have 10 minutes t o do so. Try t o do the best you can. DO NOT TURN THE PAGE OVER UNTIL TOLD TO DO SO Word Generation Task 92 MARGARINE NOTHINGNESS GINGER ALE IF YOU NEED MORE SPACE WRITE ON THE BACK OF THIS PAGE 93 Appendix B P e r s o n a l i t y C h e c k l i s t 94 I. D. # E§£§2Q§lifeX_Check_List L i s t e d below are 15 p a i r s of t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s . For each p a i r put an "X" on the l i n e t o i n d i c a t e how you would r a t e y o u r s e l f with r e s p e c t t o the p a i r o f a d j e c t i v e s . 1. P r e d i c t a b l e : : : : : : : : U n p r e d i c t a b l e 2. Unconventional : : : : : : : : Conventional 3. A s s e r t i v e : : : .' : : : •" Soft-spoken 4. Solemn : : : : : : : : L i g h t - h e a r t e d 5. T a c t f u l : : : : : : : : Candid 6. Gentle : : : : : : : : B o i s t e r o u s 7. D e l i b e r a t e : : : : : : : : Spontaneous 8. Extravagant : : : : : : : : T h r i f t y 9. S i l l y : : : : : : : : S e r i o u s 10. Competitive : : : : : : : : Cooperative 11. Quiet : : : : : : : : Out-spoken 12. Independent : : : : : : : : Dependent 13. Cautious : : : : : : : : Risky 14. Ambitious : : : : : : : : Laid-back 15. Y i e l d i n g : : : : : : : : Dominant Appendix C E x p l a n a t i o n Tasks 96 I .D.# One of the t a s k s you w i l l be doing today i s the Remote A s s o c i a t e T e s t (RA t e s t ) . In the RA t e s t you are giv e n three item words and your job i s t o come up with a f o u r t h E n g l i s h word (answer) t h a t i s a s s o c i a t e d , i n some way, with a l l o f the t h r e e g i v e n item words. For example, i f g i v e n : B i r t h d a y - - S u r p r i s e - - D i n n e r as the item words, a r i g h t answer f o r the f o u r t h word would be PARTY s i n c e a l l t h r e e of the giv e n item words are a type o f p a r t y (e.g.. B i r t h d a y p a r t y . S u r p r i s e p a r t y . Dinner p a r t y ) . Before you s t a r t the Remote A s s o c i a t e T e s t (RA t e s t ) , we're i n t e r e s t e d i n how people come to e x p l a i n and understand t h i n g s about themselves. Of course we don't know a t the present time how w e l l or how p o o r l y you w i l l do on the RA t e s t . Some s u b j e c t s do very w e l l and o t h e r s do q u i t e p o o r l y . We'd l i k e you t o imagine t h a t you t r i e d the RA t e s t and t h a t you d i d very, very w e l l -- b e t t e r than almost a l l other s u b j e c t s . How would you e x p l a i n such a performance? Use t h i n g s t h a t you know about y o u r s e l f (your past h i s t o r y , your c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , e t c . ) and the type of task i t i s which might help t o e x p l a i n why you d i d so w e l l . Think c a r e f u l l y and t r y to come up with as good an e x p l a n a t i o n as you can. To repeat, we have no i d e a how you w i l l do on the RA t e s t . We would simply l i k e t o see how you would e x p l a i n a h y p o t h e t i c a l outcome. TURN THE PAGE OVER and e x p l a i n why you d i d so w e l l on the RA t e s t . The reasons I d i d very w e l l on the RA t e s t are 98 I. D. # One of the ta s k s you w i l l be doing today i s the Remote A s s o c i a t e T e s t (RA t e s t ) . In the RA t e s t you are given t h r e e item words and your 3 0 b i s t o come up with a f o u r t h E n g l i s h word (answer) t h a t i s a s s o c i a t e d , i n some way, with a l l of the t h r e e g i v e n item words. For example, i f g i v e n : B i r t h d a y - - S u r p r i s e — D i n n e r as the item words, a r i g h t answer f o r the f o u r t h word would be PARTY s i n c e a l l t h r e e o f the given item words are a type o f p a r t y (e.g.. B i r t h d a y p a r t y , S u r p r i s e p a r t y . Dinner p a r t y ) . Before you s t a r t the Remote A s s o c i a t e T e s t (RA t e s t ) , we're i n t e r e s t e d i n how people come to e x p l a i n and understand t h i n g s about themselves. Of course we don't know a t the present time how w e l l or how p o o r l y you w i l l do on the RA t e s t . Some s u b j e c t s do very w e l l and o t h e r s do q u i t e p o o r l y . We'd l i k e you to imagine t h a t you t r i e d the RA t e s t and t h a t you d i d very, very p o o r l y worse than almost a l l other s u b j e c t s . How would you e x p l a i n such a performance? Use t h i n g s t h a t you know about y o u r s e l f (your past h i s t o r y , your c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , e t c . ) and the type of task i t i s which might h e l p t o e x p l a i n why you d i d so p o o r l y . Think c a r e f u l l y and t r y t o come up with as good an e x p l a n a t i o n as you can. To r e p e a t , we have no i d e a how you w i l l do on the RA t e s t . We would simply l i k e t o see how you would e x p l a i n a h y p o t h e t i c a l outcome. TURN THE PAGE OVER and e x p l a i n why you d i d so p o o r l y on the RA t e s t . The reasons I d i d very fioorly. on the RA t e s t are 100 Appendix D E x p e c t a t i o n Rating S c a l e 101 I .D.# We are i n t e r e s t e d i n your e x p e c t a t i o n s about how you w i l l perform on the Remote A s s o c i a t e T e s t (RA t e s t ) . P l e a s e t r y t o ass e s s as a c c u r a t e l y as you can what your performance w i l l be. C i r c l e the number which i n d i c a t e s your r a t i n g . -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 l i k e l y t o l i k e l y t o l i k e l y t o do much do about do much worse than the same b e t t e r o t h e r UBC as other than o t h e r s t u d e n t s UBC s t u d e n t s UBC s t u d e n t s 102 Appendix E Task Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s 103 Task Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I .D.# Now we would l i k e t o ask about your p e r c e p t i o n s of your performance on the Remote A s s o c i a t e T e s t . For the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s c i r c l e the number which i n d i c a t e s your r a t i n g . 1. How w e l l do you t h i n k you performed on the task r e l a t i v e t o other students? 1 2 WORSE THAN OTHER UBC STUDENTS 8 9 BETTER THAN OTHER UBC STUDENTS 2. How s a t i s f i e d a r e you with your performance? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NOT VERY VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED 3. To what e x t e n t would you say you t r i e d hard to do w e l l on the task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DID NOT TRY DID TRY VERY HARD VERY HARD To what e x t e n t would you say you cared about doing w e l l on the task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CARED VERY CARED A LITTLE GREAT DEAL 5. To what e x t e n t do you f e e l you were a b l e t o conc e n t r a t e on the task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CONCENTRATED CONCENTRATED VERY POORLY VERY WELL 104 6. To what ext e n t would you say you experienced a n x i e t y while working on the task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NOT AT ALL VERY ANXIOUS ANXIOUS 7. How many of the Remote A s s o c i a t e items do you t h i n k you got c o r r e c t ? 8. How w e l l do you expect t o do on the next word task, the word g e n e r a t i o n task, i n r e l a t i o n t o other students doing the task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WORSE THAN BETTER THAN OTHER UBC OTHER UBC STUDENTS STUDENTS 105 Task Qu e s t i o n n a i r e I.D.# Now we would l i k e t o ask about your p e r c e p t i o n s o f your performance on the Anagram Task. For the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s c i r c l e the number which i n d i c a t e s your r a t i n g . 1. How w e l l do you t h i n k you performed on the task r e l a t i v e t o other students? 1 2 WORSE THAN OTHER UBC STUDENTS 8 9 BETTER THAN OTHER UBC STUDENTS How s a t i s f i e d are you with your performance? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NOT VERY VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED To what ext e n t would you say you t r i e d hard t o do w e l l on the task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DID NOT TRY DID TRY VERY HARD VERY HARD 4. To what ext e n t would you say you cared about doing w e l l on the task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CARED VERY CARED A LITTLE GREAT DEAL 5. To what extent do you f e e l you were a b l e t o co n c e n t r a t e on the task? 1 2 CONCENTRATED VERY POORLY 3 4 5 6 7 CONCENTRATED VERY WELL 106 6. To what extent would you say working on the task? 1 2 3 4 NOT AT ALL ANXIOUS you experienced a n x i e t y while 5 6 7 VERY ANXIOUS 7. How many anagrams do you t h i n k you solved? 8. How w e l l do you expect t o do on the next word task, the word gen e r a t i o n t a s k , i n r e l a t i o n t o other students doing the task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WORSE THAN BETTER THAN OTHER UBC OTHER UBC STUDENTS STUDENTS 107 Appendix F Post-Experimental Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 108 Post-Experimental Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I. D. # Now we would l i k e t o ask about your p e r c e p t i o n s o f your performance on the Word Generation Task. For the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s c i r c l e the number which i n d i c a t e s your r a t i n g . 1. How w e l l do you t h i n k you performed on the word g e n e r a t i o n task r e l a t i v e t o oth e r students? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WORSE THAN BETTER THAN OTHER UBC OTHER UBC STUDENTS STUDENTS 2. How s a t i s f i e d a r e you with your performance? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NOT VERY VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED 3. To what extent would you say you t r i e d hard t o do w e l l on the task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DID NOT TRY DID TRY VERY HARD VERY HARD 4. To what extent would you say you cared about doing w e l l on the task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CARED VERY CARED A LITTLE GREAT DEAL 5. To what ext e n t do you f e e l you were a b l e t o c o n c e n t r a t e on the task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CONCENTRATED CONCENTRATED VERY POORLY VERY WELL 109 6. To what, extent would you say you experienced anxiety while working on the task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NOT AT ALL VERY ANXIOUS ANXIOUS 7. How many English words of four or more l e t t e r s did you manage to generate? 8. Listed below are a set of temporary f a c t o r s that sometimes affec t performance on any given day. Please indicate to what extent you f e e l these factors may have affected your performance today by c i r c l i n g the appropriate number. A. I am t i r e d and/or not f e e l i n g well today. NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE 7 VERY APPLICABLE B. I have a l o t of other things on my mind today. NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE 7 VERY APPLICABLE C. I'm just having a "bad day". NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE 7 VERY APPLICABLE D. I was just unlucky. NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE 7 VERY APPLICABLE E. The t e s t i n g environment was a p a r t i c u l a r l y poor one for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NOT AT ALL VERY APPLICABLE APPLICABLE 110 9. How would you rate your general verbal a b i l i t y r e l a t i v e to other students? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WORSE THAN BETTER THAN MOST OTHER MOST OTHER STUDENTS STUDENTS I l l Appendix G Consent, and D e b r i e f i n g Forms Consent Form 112 I f r e e l y and v o l u n t a r i l y agree to be a p a r t i c i p a n t i n the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t e n t i t l e d , " F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g V e r b a l Performance", t o be conducted a t the Psychology department d u r i n g the academic year 1985-86 with J e n n i f e r Campbell and P a t r i c i a F a i r e y as P r i n c i p a l I n v e s t i g a t o r s . The procedures to be f o l l o w e d and t h e i r purposes have been e x p l a i n e d to me and I understand them. They are as f o l l o w s : I w i l l f i l l out a p e r s o n a l i t y check l i s t ; work on s e v e r a l word t a s k s ; and complete s e v e r a l s h o r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . The time r e q u i r e d of me i s about 1 hour. I understand t h a t a l l i n f o r m a t i o n i s c o n f i d e n t i a l and t h a t I w i l l not i d e n t i f y myself on any of the experimental m a t e r i a l s . I understand t h a t I may withdraw from the experiment at any time without e x p l a n a t i o n and with no p e n a l t y . I have been given the r i g h t t o ask q u e s t i o n s and my q u e s t i o n s , i f any, have been answered t o my s a t i s f a c t i o n . The experimenter a l s o agrees to d i s c u s s the experiment and answer any q u e s t i o n s I may have a t the c o n c l u s i o n of the study. I have read and understand the f o r e g o i n g . I have a l s o r e c e i v e d a copy of t h i s consent form. (Research P a r t i c i p a n t ) (Date) D e b r i e f i n g Statement 113 We thank you f o r your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s study. At t h i s p o i n t , we would l i k e t o e x p l a i n more f u l l y the procedures and purposes of the study. We ask you to read and s i g n t h i s form t o ensure t h a t the experimenter has not f o r g o t t e n t o t e l l you any r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . In the experiment you f i r s t completed a p e r s o n a l i t y c h e c k l i s t . For those of you who e x l p a i n e d a h y p o t h e t i c a l outcome f o r the Remote A s s o c i a t e Test (RA T e s t ) , i t was used so t h a t r e l e v a n t p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s would come to mind when you were asked t o e x p l a i n your h y p o t h e t i c a l performance. Some o f you were then asked to e x p l a i n e i t h e r a h y p o t h e t i c a l success or f a i l u r e outcome concerning the RA t e s t and some of you d i d not e x p l a i n any outcome. You were then asked to s t a t e e x p e c t a n c i e s f o r your performance on the upcoming RA t e s t . Next, h a l f of you were given the RA t e s t and the other h a l f were given a d i f f e r e n t , but r e l a t e d task, the anagram task. F i n a l l y , everyone s t a t e d performance ex p e c t a n c i e s f o r the word g e n e r a t i o n task and then worked on the t a s k . P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h has shown t h a t when people are asked to generate e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r a h y p o t h e t i c a l success or f a i l u r e , t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s concerning f u t u r e performance are a f f e c t e d . E x p l a i n i n g a h y p o t h e t i c a l success l e a d s to higher e x p e c t a t i o n s while e x p l a i n i n g a f a i l u r e l e a d s to lower e x p e c t a t i o n s . Furthermore, t h e r e i s some evidence t h a t when e x p e c t a t i o n s are e x p l i c i t l y formed (e.g., s t a t e d ) , a c t u a l performance i s a l s o i n f l u e n c e d . In t h i s study, we were i n t e r e s t e d i n s e e i n g i f the e f f e c t s of e x p l a n a t i o n and e x p e c t a t i o n g e n e r a l i z e t o a task other than the one i n v o l v e d i n the e x p l a n a t i o n . Thus, some of you f i r s t worked on the RA t e s t (the task t h a t e x p l a n a t i o n s and e x p e c t a t i o n s were generated f o r ) while o t h e r s f i r s t worked on a r e l a t e d t a s k , the anagram task . We were a l s o i n t e r e s t e d i n whether these e f f e c t s would g e n e r a l i z e s t i l l f u r t h e r and a f f e c t performance on a second r e l a t e d task d e s p i t e the i n t e r v e n t i o n o f a c t u a l performance on the f i r s t t ask. T h i s was the purpose of a s k i n g you t o work on the word ge n e r a t i o n t a s k . A second purpose of the study was to examine the p o t e n t i a l moderating e f f e c t s of s e l f - e s t e e m on the processes d e s c r i b e d above. There i s evidence t h a t people with high s e l f - e s t e e m e x p l a i n s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e i n a d i f f e r e n t manner than people with low s e l f - e s t e e m and t h a t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n explanatory s t y l e may produce d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x p e c t a t i o n s and task performance. E a r l i e r i n the term you completed a s e l f - e s t e e m s c a l e . The s c o r e s from t h i s s c a l e w i l l enable us to determine i f s e l f - e s t e e m d i d i n f a c t make a d i f f e r e n c e i n how e x p l a n a t i o n s a f f e c t e d e x p l a n a t i o n s and subsequent performance. 114 A l l of the data c o l l e c t e d In t h i s experiment are s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l and w i l l not be associated with your name i n any way. We ask that you do not discuss t h i s research with your friends and classmates u n t i l a f t e r t h i s academic year. If any questions occur to you l a t e r , or i f you wish to f i n d out the r e s u l t s of the study, please contact P a t r i c i a Fairey (228-6487). The re s u l t s should be available a f t e r June. I have read the above and understand i t . Any questions have been answered to my s a t i s f a c t i o n . I agree not to discuss t h i s experiment with classmates or friends u n t i l the summer or 1986. (Research Participant) (Date) A p p e n d i x H Summary of the Analyses 116 Summary of the A n a l y s i s of Var iance fo r F i r s t - t a s k E x p e c t a t i o n s SOURCE OF VARIATION MAIN EFFECTS MSE EXPL 2-WAV INTERACTIONS MSE EXPL EXPLAINED RESIDUAL TOTAL SUM OF MEAN SIGNII SOUARES DF SQUARE F OF F 38.392 3 12.797 10 . 306 0 000 16.875 1 16.875 13 591 O.OOO 21.517 2 10.758 8 664 O.OOO 3.050 2 1 .525 1 . 228 0.297 3.050 2 1 .525 1 . 228 0.297 41 .442 5 8 . 288 6. 675 0.000 141 .550 1 14 1 . 242 182.992 '1 19 1 .538 Summary of the Analys is of Variance 117 for First-task Performance SUM OF MEAN SIGNIF SOURCE OF VARIATION SQUARES OF SQUARE F OF F MAIN EFFECTS 11 .358 4 2. 839 3 143 0.017 MSE 0 .349 1 0 349 0 386 0 536 EXPL 11 .009 2 5 504 6. 094 0.003 TASK 0 OOO 1 0 000 0 000 1 .000 2-WAY INTERACTIONS 8 .467 5 1 . 693 1 , 875 0. 105 MSE EXPL 6 .812 2 3. 406 3. 771 0.026 MSE TASK 0 001 1 0. 001 0. 001 0.970 EXPL TASK 1 . .653 2 0. 827 0 915 0.403 3-WAY INTERACTIONS 0 622 2 0. 311 0 344 0.710 MSE EXPL TASK 0. 622 2 0. 311 0. 344 0.710 EXPLAINED 20. 446 11 1. 859 2. 058 0.03O RESIDUAL 97 . 554 108 0. 903 TOTAL 1 18. 000 1 19 0. 992 l i d Summary of the Analys i s of Variance for Second-task Expectat ions SUM OF MEAN SIGNIF SOURCE OF VARIATION SQUARES OF SQUARE F OF F MAIN EFFECTS 1 1 .250 4 2 .812 1 .839 0. 127 MSE 1 .633 1 1 .633 1 .068 0.304 EXPL 9 .317 2 4 .658 3 .045 0.052 TASK 0 .300 1 0 .300 0 . 196 0.659 2-WAV INTERACTIONS 14 700 5 2 .940 1 .922 0 097 MSE EXPL 5. 017 2 2 .508 1 .640 0. 199 MSE TASK 2 133 1 2 . 133 1 .395 0.240 EXPL TASK 7. 550 2 3 .775 2 .468 0.090 3-WAY INTERACTIONS 2. 317 2 1 . 158 0. .757 0.471 MSE EXPL TASK 2. 317 2 1 . 158 0 .757 0. 47 1 EXPLAINEO 28 . 267 11 2 . 570 1 . 680 0.087 RESIDUAL 165. 200 108 1 .530 TOTAL 193. 467 1 19 1 .626 119 Summary of the A n a l y s i s of Variance for Second-task Performance SUM OF MEAN SIGNIF SOURCE OF VARIATION SQUARES OF SQUARE F OF F MAIN EFFECTS 3. 436 4 0 859 0 .834 0. 506 MSE 1 . 676 1 1 .676 1 , .627 0. 205 EXPL 1 . 523 2 0 . 761 0 .739 0. 480 TASK 0. 238 1 0 . 238 0 .231 0 632 2-WAY INTERACTIONS 4 . 158 5 0 832 0 807 0 547 MSE EXPL 1 . 459 2 0 . 730 0 708 0. 495 MSE TASK 0. 713 1 0 .713 0 .692 0. 407 EXPL TASK 1. 986 2 0 .993 0. 964 0. 385 3-WAY INTERACTIONS 0. 142 2 0 .071 0. 069 0. 934 MSE EXPL TASK 0. 142 2 0 .071 0. 069 0. 934 EXPLAINED 7. 736 11 0 , 703 0. 683 0. 752 RESIOUAL 111. 264 108 1 .030 TOTAL 119. OOO 1 19 1. OOO Summary o f t h e R e p e a t e d M e a s u r e s A n a l y s i s f o r E x p e c t a t i o n s BETWEEN SUBJECT FACTORS ARE: A - MSE B - EXPL C - TASK WITHIN SUBJECT FACTORS ARE: 0 - TIME 1 FIRST 2 SECOND SOURCE SUM OF SQUARES DEGREES OF FREEDOM MEAN SQUARES F RATIO PROBABILITY A B AB C AC BC ABC 14.504 29.575 0O9 . 838 .603 .924 360 4 . 1 2  6. 6 S-WITHIN 220.164 1 . 2 . 2 . 1 . 1 . 2 . 2 . 108. 14.504 14.788 2 004 1 . 838 2 .603 3 . 462 3 . 180 2 .039 7.115 7 . 254 0.983 0 . 902 1 . 277 1 .698 1 .560 009 OOI 377 344 26 1 188 215 D AD BO ABD CD ACD BCD ABCD DS-WITHIN 26.006 4.004 1 .257 .058 . 334 208 577 506 77.543 1 . 1 . 2. 2 . 1 . 1 . 2 . 2 . 108 . 26.006 4 .004 0.629 2.029 0. 334 O. 208 0.789 0.753 O. 7 18 36.220 5.577 .876 .826 466 289 1 .098 1 .049 O. 2. 0. 0. 0.001 0.020 0.420 0.064 0.496 0.592 0.337 0. 354 O Summary of the Repeated Measures A n a l y s i s f o r Performance BETWEEN SUBJECT FACTORS ARE: A - MSE B - EXPL C - TASK WITHIN SUBJECT FACTORS ARE: 0 - TIME 1 FIRST 2 SECOND SOURCE SUM OF DEGREES OF MEAN SOUARES FREEDOM SOUARES A 1 . 777 1 . 1 .777 B 10.146 2. 5 .073 AB 7.288 2. 3.644 C 0. 1 19 1 . 0.119 AC 0. 387 1 . 0.387 BC 1.419 2. 0.709 ABC 0.095 2 . 0.048 S-WITHIN 149.173 108 . 1 381 D 0.000 1 . 0.000 AD 0. 248 1 . 0. 248 BO 2.385 2 . 1 . 193 ABD 0.983 2 . 0.492 CD 0.119 1 . 0. 1 19 ACD 0.327 1 . 0.327 BCD 2.221 2 . 1.110 ABCD 0.668 2 . 0. 334 DS-WITHIN 59.644 108. 0.552 F RATIO 1 .287 3.673 2 .638 0.086 O. 280 0.514 0.034 0.000 O. 448 2 . 160 0.890 0.215 0.592 2.011 0.605 PROBABILITY 0.259 0.029 0.076 0.770 0.598 0.600 0.966 0 999 O 505 0 120 0.4 14 0.643 0.443 0. 139 0.548 122 Summary of the Ana lys i s of Covariance for F i r s t - t a s k Performance SUM OF MEAN SIGNIF SOURCE OF VARIATION SQUARES DF SQUARE F OF F COVARIATES 5 .766 1 5 .766 6 .401 0.013 EXP 1 5 . 766 1 5 . 766 6 . 401 0.013 MAIN EFFECTS 7 . 100 4 1 .775 1 .970 0. 104 MSE 0 .025 1 0 .025 0 .028 0.867 EXPL 7 .016 2 3 .508 3 .894 0.023 TASK 0 .020 1 0 .020 0 .022 O.S83 2-WAY INTERACTIONS a .058 5 1 612 1 . 789 0. 121 MSE EXPL 6 .569 2 3 284 3 646 0.029 MSE TASK 0 .001 1 0. 001 0. 002 0.968 EXPL TASK 1 , . 500 2 0. 750 0. 833 0.438 3-WAY INTERACTIONS 0 680 2 0. 340 0. 377 0.687 MSE EXPL TASK 0 680 2 0. 340 0. 377 0.687 EXPLAINED 21 . 604 12 1 . 800 1 . 998 0.031 RESIDUAL 96. 396 107 0. 901 TOTAL 118. 000 1 19 0. 992 123 Summary of the A n a l y s i s of Covar iance fo r Pe rcep t i ons of Second- task Performance SUM OF MEAN SIGNIF SOURCE OF VARIATION SQUARES OF SQUARE F OF F COVARIATES 133 .700 5 26 . 740 12 .073 0 .000 EXP 1 2 .757 1 2 .757 1 .245 0 .267 EXP2 13 .411 1 13 .411 6 .055 0 016 2PERF 1 15 . 186 1 15 . 186 6 .856 0 010 ZPERF2 56 .917 1 56 917 25 .697 0. 000 ZP1 9 .864 1 9. 864 4 .453 0 037 MAIN EFFECTS 36 .565 4 9. . 141 4 127 0. 004 MSE 8 078 1 8. 078 3 647 0. 059 EXPL 10 .604 2 5 302 2 . 394 0 096 TASK 17 440 1 17 . 440 7 874 0 006 2-WAY INTERACTIONS 20 688 5 4 . 138 1 .868 0. 106 MSE EXPL 5. 539 2 2 . 770 1 .250 0 291 MSE TASK 5. 292 1 5. 292 2 .389 0. 125 EXPL TASK 9. 115 2 4 . 557 2 058 0. 133 3-WAY INTERACTIONS 5. 787 2 2 893 1 306 0. 275 MSE EXPL TASK 5. 787 2 2 . 893 1 .306 0. 275 EXPLAINED 196 . 739 16 12. 296 5 551 0 OOO RESIDUAL 228. 139 103 2 . 215 TOTAL 424 . 878 119 3. 570 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096979/manifest

Comment

Related Items