Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

A Structural Model of Self-Worth Protection and Achievement: Goals, Evaluative Anxiety,

Attributions, Self-Esteem, and Uncertainty

Dale L. Dinnel, Todd Brittain, Ted Thompson

Kari Johnson Mary King, and Kim Pust
Western Washington University University of Tasmania
United States of America Australia

The purpose of this study was to test a model of self-worth protection and achievement behavior using measures of
goal orientation, evaluative anxiety, attributional styles, self-esteem, and uncertainty. Data were collected from 306
university students at Western Washington University to test the fit of the data to proposed model of self-worth
protection tendencies and academic achievement. In the best fitting model, evaluative threat was predictive of self-
uncertainty. High levels of self-uncertainty were predictive of low levels of internal, controllable attributions and high
performance avoidance goal orientations and low mastery goal orientations as well as of a self-worth protection
tendency. Low levels of internal, controllable attributions also predicted that the goal orientation would lack a
mastery focus while focusing on performance avoidance. This goal orientation was predictive of a self-worth
protection tendency which, in turn, was predictive of low achievement.

Although most individuals strive to achieve at the
highest level, some individuals are motivated to avoid
failure at all costs (Covington & Omelich, 1979). For these
individuals, failure is so distressing that they will do
anything to avoid accompanying attributions of low
ability. When people are uncertain of their ability and
performance and express evaluative anxiety, they utilize
strategies to deflect attributions of low ability following
failure such as self-worth protection (Thompson, 1999).
Thus, self-worth protection is a strategy whereby certain
students withdraw effort so that they are able to avoid the
negative effects of poor performance in terms of damage
to self-worth.
Closely associated with self-worth protection are
several predisposing personality variables. In particular,
self-worth protection behavior is a response to the threat
posed by an evaluative situation in which a judgment may
be made about an individual’s ability (Covington &
Omelich, 1979; Thompson, 1999). The threat of evaluation
may be expressed either as a fear of evaluative situations
(e.g., fear of failure and fear of negative evaluation) or as
anxiety associated with evaluative situations (e.g., test
anxiety or evaluation anxiety) (Thompson, 1999)
In addition to evaluative anxiety, links between self-
worth protection and low global and academic self-esteem
have been noted (Covington & Omelich, 1985; Craske,
1985; Thompson, 1993; Thompson, Davidson, & Barber,
1995). Baumgardner and Levy (1988) offer a way of
understanding the self-protective orientation of low self-
esteem people. They suggest that there is a difference in
which high and low self-esteem groups perceive the ability
of individuals who expend effort, but fail. In the case of
high self-esteem individuals, the intention to expend effort
implies high ability regardless of performance. On the
other hand, intentional low effort signals low ability.
However, low self-esteem individuals appear to view
individuals who try hard but fail as less able than
individuals who try hard and succeed. That is, low-self
esteem individuals seem unwilling to conclude that an
individual who tries hard and fails can nonetheless be
quite capable. Thus, low self-esteem individuals may, in
fact, be operating under the mistaken impression that
strategic withdrawal of effort is an effective self-
1
presentational strategy, at least insofar as it mitigates
perceptions of low ability in the face of failure.
The certainty with which individuals estimate their
level of global self-esteem as well as the causes for their
achievement has its own distinct effects on achievement
behavior. People with uncertain self-images lack
confidence in their worth in the eyes of other people and in
their capacity to bring about effects in their environment
(Thompson, 1993, 1997,1999; Thompson et al., 1995). In
addition, they are querulous about the causes of their
achievement outcomes and, as a consequence, are unlikely
to fully internalise their success (Thompson et al., 1995).
Combined with low self-esteem and uncertainty the
attributional styles of self-worth protective individuals
tend toward dysfunctional patterns. Thompson et al.
(1995) found that self-worth protective individuals
perceived less control over achievement situations
irrespective of whether the outcome was success or failure
than non-self-worth protective, high academic self-esteem
individuals. In addition, they found that self-worth
protective individuals attributed failure to internal factors
while attributing success to external factors whereas the
reverse was true of non-self-worth protective individuals.
Furthermore, non-self-worth protective individuals
attribute success to stable factors and failure to unstable
factors while the reverse seems to characterize self-worth
protective individuals (McCarry, Edwards, & Rozario,
1982; Miller & Ross, 1975; Schlenker, Weigold, &
Hallam, 1990; Thompson, 1999).
Taken together these personality variables may affect
goal-setting strategies (Thompson, 1999). Individuals who
are non-self-worth protective or success-oriented students
have a tendency to set goals of intermediate difficulty that
will ensure self-improvement (Covington, 2000;
Thompson 1999), a mastery goal orientation (Ames,
1992). Thompson (1999) posited that self-worth protective
individuals set goals that are competitive in orientation or
what is commonly referred to as a performance goal
orientation (see Dweck, 1986). However, Elliot and
Harackiewicz (1996) further divided this performance goal
orientation into performance approach and performance
avoidance goal orientations. People with performance
approach goal orientations competitively seek to
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas
demonstrate their competence whereas people with
performance avoidance goal orientations tend to avoid the
demonstration of incompetence. Thus, it would seem that
non-self-worth protective individuals might be more
vested in either mastery or performance approach goal
orientations whereas self-worth protective individuals
would be more likely to set performance avoidance goals.
Taken together, these personality variables, goals
orientations, and self-worth protective behaviors lead to
the withdrawal of effort on the part of self-worth
protective individuals. While this strategy may serve the
short-term benefit of avoiding a judgment of their self-
worth based on ability, in the long-term achievement is
adversely affected (Thompson, 1999). In particular,
achievement as measured by standardized tests and by
cumulative grade point averages will be lower for self-
worth protective versus non-self-worth protective
individuals.
As a result of the findings stated above, two structural
models of self-worth protection and achievement behavior
were proposed. In the first model (Model 1), self-
uncertainty (global self-esteem uncertainty and causal
uncertainty) is predictive of low self-esteem (academic
and global self esteem) and self-worth protection
tendencies (ability doubts, importance of ability, and
avoidance orientation). Low self-esteem, in turn, is
predictive of self-worth protective tendencies,
dysfunctional attributional patterns (lack of internalizing
success, lack of control, and lack of stable ability
estimates), and evaluative threat (fear of failure, fear of
negative evaluation, test anxiety, evaluative anxiety).
Dysfunctional attributional patterns and goal orientations
that are low in mastery and performance approach
characteristics but high in performance avoidance
characteristics are predictive of self-worth protective
tendencies. In addition, goal orientation is predictive of
evaluative threat which is, in turn, predictive of self-worth
protective tendencies. The tendency to engage in self-
worth protective behaviors is predictive of low
achievement as measured by standardized tests and
cumulative grade point averages (see Figure 1). In the
alternate model (Model 2), evaluative threat is predictive
of self-uncertainty and self-worth protection tendencies. In
turn, self-uncertainty is predictive of self-worth protective
tendencies and low self-esteem. Low self esteem also is
predictive of self-worth protective tendencies as well as
dysfunctional attributions. Dysfunctional attributions are
predictive of self-worth protective tendencies and
dysfunctional goal orientations. Dysfunctional goal
orientations are predictive of self-worth protective
tendencies which, in turn, are predictive of low long-term
achievement (see Figure 2).
Method
Participants
Three hundred twenty-nine undergraduate introductory
psychology students from Western Washington University
participated in the present study for research credit. The
responses for 23 participants were incomplete, resulting in
complete data for 306 (141 men and 165 women)
2
participants. These participants ranged in age from 18-30
with a mean age of 19.07 years (SD = 1.05 years). The
ethnic/racial identity of the participants included 262
European Americans, 15 Asian Americans, 8 African
Americans, 4 Latinos, 7 Pacific Islanders, 2 American
Indians, 7 of mixed ethnicity, and 1 who reported other
ethnic/racial classifications.
Materials
Academic Self-Esteem Scale. Academic self-esteem was
assessed using the Academic Self-Esteem Scale (ASE) of
the Marsh (1990) Self-Descriptive Questionnaire III. ASES
assesses individuals' self-esteem in academic situations
using 30 items such as "I learn quickly in most academic
subjects." Participants are asked to indicate their
disagreement/agreement to each item on a 9-point scale with
end-point designations Strongly disagree (1) and Strongly
agree (9). Marsh (1990) reported Cronbach’s alphas for the
ASE ranging from .76 to .95, with a mean of .89 (Marsh,
1990). Marsh also reported median test-retest reliabilities of
.87 for a one-month interval and .74 for an 18-month
interval.
Causal Dimension Scale. The Causal Dimension Scale
is comprised of 9 items (Russell, 1982) that represent three
attributional dimensions: internality, stability, and
controllability. Participants are asked to rate a situation in
terms of three internality (INT; e.g., “Reflects on you—
Reflects your situation”), three stability (STAB; e.g.,
“Permanent—Temporary”), and three controllability
(CON; e.g., “Not under your control—Under your
control”) semantic differential responses. A factor analysis
confirmed the three-factor structure of this scale (Russell,
1982). Russell found the measures of internal consistency
to be acceptable for both internality and stability, α = .88,
but somewhat problematic for controllability, α = .48.
Causal Uncertainty Scale. The Causal Uncertainty Scale
(CU; Edwards, Weary, & Reich, 1998) is a 9-item scale that
measures the degree to which individuals are uncertain of
the causes of events in their lives. Sample items are: "When
I receive poor grades, I usually don't understand why I did
so poorly” and “I do not know what it takes to get along
with others." Participants are asked to rate each item on a 6-
point scale with end-point designations of Strongly disagree
(6) and Strongly agree (1). Edwards et al. (1988) report a
coefficient alpha of .86 and found the CU to be significantly
correlated with depression (r = .37), perceived lack of
control (r = .51), anxiety (r = .41), intolerance for ambiguity
(r = .26), self-esteem (r = -.40), neuroticism (r = .32),
decisiveness (r = -.28) and need for cognition (r = -.42),
demonstrating construct validity.
Evaluation Anxiety Scale. The Evaluation Anxiety Scale
(EVAN; Thompson & Dinnel, 2001) is comprised of 15
items that measure self-reported anxiety in evaluative
situations. A sample item from the EVAN is: "I get anxious
when I am given a homework assignment that challenges
my ability to do well." Participants are asked to rate the
degree to which each item is true of them on a 7-point scale
with endpoint designations of Not at all true of me (1) and
Very true of me (7). Construct validity of the EVAN was
demonstrated by correlations with fear of failure (r = .54),
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

fear of negative evaluation (r = .48), and test anxiety (r = = .91), worry (α = .81), tension (α = .87), test-irrelevant
.56). The internal consistency of EVAN was α = .85. thinking (α = .81), and bodily symptoms (α = .76).
Fear of Failure Scale. The Fear of Failure Scale (FOF) School Domain Goal Orientation Scale. The School
is a 9-item subscale of the Study Problems Questionnaire Domain Goal Orientation Scale is an adaptation of the 13
(Schouwenburg, 1995). The items measure the level of items on the Work Domain Goal Orientation Instrument
fear that a person experiences in work and educational (Vandewalle, 1997). In general, the word “work” in the
situations (e.g., “I’m afraid that all my weak points will Work Domain Goal Orientation Instrument was replaced
show up in examinations.”). Items are rated on a 5-point by the word “school” in the School Domain Orientation
scale with rating point descriptors of strongly disagree (1), Scale. For example, “I am willing to select a challenging
disagree (2), neither agree or disagree (3), agree (4), and work assignment that I can learn a lot from” was changed
strongly agree (5). to “I am willing to select a challenging school assignment
Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. The Fear of that I can learn a lot from. A factor analysis of the scale
Negative Evaluation Scale (FNE; Watson & Friend, 1969) yielded three subscales: Mastery Goal Orientation (MGO;
is a 30-item scale that assesses the extent to which people e.g., “I enjoy challenging and difficulty tasks at school
experience apprehension about being negatively evaluated (work) where I’ll learn new skills.”), Performance
by other people. A sample item from the FNE is “I am Approach Goal Orientation (PGOAPP; e.g., “I try to figure
afraid that others will not approve of me”. Participants are out what it takes to prove my ability to others at school
asked to rate the degree to which each statement is (work).”), and Performance Avoidance Goal Orientation
characteristic of them on a 5-point scale with end- and (PGOAV; e.g., “ I’m concerned about taking on a task at
intermediate-point designations of Not at all school (work) if my performance would reveal that I had
characteristic of me (1), Slightly characteristic of me (2), low ability.”). Participants rate each item on a 6-point
Moderately characteristic of me (3), Very characteristic scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree.
of me (4), and Extremely characteristic of me (5). The Measures of internal consistency exceeded the criterion of
brief form of the FNE scale (Leary, 1983), which was α = .80 for each subscale, Mastery (α = .89), Approach (α
used in the present study, uses 12 of the original 30 items = .85), and Avoidance (α = .89), demonstrating a high
of the FNE Scale. Leary reported an inter-item reliability level of internal consistency in responding. In addition, the
of .90 and test-retest reliability of .75 for the brief form of test-retest reliability over a 3-month interval was r = .66
the FNE. for Mastery, r = .60 for Approach, and r = .57 for
Global Self-Esteem Uncertainty Scale. The Global Avoidance.
Self-Esteem Uncertainty Scale (GSEU) uses the items Self-Esteem Scale. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
from the Global subscale of the Marsh (1990) Self- (RSES, Rosenberg, 1965) consists of 10 items that assess
Descriptive Questionnaire III. The Global Self-Esteem participants’ levels of self-acceptance. Responses are
Scale (GSE) is a 12-item scale that measures how made on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly
individuals’ feel about themselves in general. However, disagree to 5 = strongly agree on items such as “I feel that
for the present study, we implemented format changes I have a number of good qualities” and “At times I think I
consistent with Thompson (1993, Thompson, Davidson & am no good at all”. The scale demonstrates good
Barber, 1995). In particular, certainty of GSE items was convergent validity with correlations of .67, .83, and .56
gained by formatting the Marsh items into a dichotomous when correlated with three other measures of self-esteem
point format (“like me”, “unlike me”), then asking (Silber & Tippett, 1965) Silber and Tippett also found a
participants to rate their responses of a 5-point scale test-retest reliability over a 2-week interval of .86.
ranging from Very certain (1) to Not at all certain (5). Self-Worth Protection Scale-Short Form. The Self-
Thompson and Dinnel (2000) report an internal Worth Protection Scale (SWP; Dinnel & Thompson, 2001)
consistency of α = .88. Furthermore, correlations of the comprises 18 self-descriptive statements formatted on 7-
GSEU with causal uncertainty (r = .38) and fear of point scales with end-point designations of Not very true
negative evaluation (r = .49) indicate construct validity. of me (1) to Very true of me (7). The SWPS comprises
Revised Test Anxiety Scale. The Revised Test Anxiety three subscales, these being Ability Doubts (AD; 6 items),
Scale (RTAS, Benson & El-Zahhar, 1994) consists of 20 Importance of Ability (IA; 6 items), and Avoidance
items that are designed to assess situation specific anxiety. Orientation (AO; 6 items). A sample item is: "I’m afraid
Items are rated on a 4-point scale where 1 = almost never, that I will fail at something even though I often do pretty
2 = sometimes, 3 = often, and 4 = almost always. From the well". Dinnel and Thompson (2001) report an internal
results of a factor analysis, Benson and El-Zahhar defined consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of .92 and test-retest
for factors for the RTAS comprised of items such as reliability of .90 for a four-week interval. In addition, they
“During a test I feel very tense” (tension), “During tests I report that the SWP was correlated with academic self-
find myself thinking about the consequences of failing” handicapping (r = .45) and the impostor phenomenon (r =
(worry), “While taking tests I sometimes think about being .58), indicating construct validity. For the present study, an
somewhere else” (test-irrelevant thinking), and “I get a 18-item revision of this scale was used (Thompson,
headache during an important exam” (bodily symptoms). Crosswell, & Dinnel, 2001).
Since the subscale scores are fairly highly correlated (r =
.53-.79), subscale scores were summed to form a total test Procedure
anxiety score in the present study. Benson and El-Zahhar
report excellent internal consistencies for the total score (α Participants were tested in two groups of
approximately 150 in a university classroom that
3
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas
accommodated 500 students. They were told that they
would be completing a questionnaire packet in which their
attitudes and behaviors in academic situations would be
measured as well as some dimensions of their own
personality. They were encouraged to read each question
carefully and to respond to it in a manner consistent with
how they felt about the item at that particular time. They
were also informed that there were no correct answers to
each item, merely how they felt about the item at that
particular time. Participants were also told that they were
not to provide any identifying information such as their
names or student numbers in an effort to encourage honest
responding. After responding to questions, participants
were allowed one hour to complete the questionnaire
packet.
Results
Bivariate correlations for each of the variables are
presented in Table 1. In addition, measures of internal
consistency (Cronbach’s alpha, means and standard
deviations for each of the variables in the present study are
presented in Table 2. Model 1 was then tested for
goodness of fit using AMOS. The results of the analysis
indicated that the model was not a good fit for the data
(χ2(142, N = 306) = 818.10, p < .001; GFI = .77; CFI =
.69; NFI = .65; ECVI = 3.00; RMSEA = .13).
Nonsignificant paths were removed and adjustments to the
model were made in accordance to the modification
indices failed to yield a model with acceptable goodness-
of-fit indices.
The alternate model, Model 2, was then tested. The
results of the analysis indicated that this model was not a
good fit for the data (χ2(142, N = 306) = 725.07, p < .001;
GFI = .80; CFI = .74; NFI = .70; ECVI = 2.58; RMSEA =
.11). However when nonsignificant paths were removed
(i.e., self-esteem variables, the stability component of
attributions, and the importance of ability dimension of
self-worth protection) and adjustments were made in
accordance to the modification indices (i.e., fear measures
were removed from evaluative anxiety because of
significant shared variance with anxiety measures and
performance approach goal orientation was removed
because of significant shared variance with mastery goal
orientation), the resultant model provided an acceptable fit
to the data (χ2(47, N = 306) = 161.28, p < .001; GFI = .92;
CFI = .90; NFI = .87; ECVI = 0.73; RMSEA = .08). The
standardized coefficients for this final model are provided
in Figure 3.
Discussion
The two proposed models in the present study did not
result in acceptable fit indices. Even when modifications
to Model 1 were considered, an acceptable fit was not
attained. However, when modifications to Model 2 were
considered, an acceptable fit to the data was achieved. In
this model, evaluative threat as measured by test anxiety
and evaluative anxiety was predictive of self-uncertainty
as measured by global self-esteem uncertainty and causal
uncertainty. High levels of self-uncertainty were predictive
of low levels of internal, controllable attributions and goal
4
orientations that were high on performance avoidance and
low on mastery as well as of a self-worth protection
tendency which was measured by ability doubts and an
avoidance orientation. Low levels of internal, controllable
attributions also predicted that the goal orientation would
lack a mastery focus while focusing on performance
avoidance. This goal orientation was predictive of a self-
worth protection tendency which, in turn, was predictive
of low achievement as measured by the composite score
on the Scholastic Aptitude Test and cumulative grade
point average.
The results of the present study are consistent with the
literature on failure avoidance and self-worth protection.
When individuals are anxious about their performance on
academic tasks, the anxiety is often associated with a lack
of confidence or uncertainty about their abilities
(Thompson, 1999). This uncertainty affects results in the
perception of tasks as being beyond their control
(Thompson et al., 1995). However, in the present model,
self-uncertainty led to more external attributions whereas
self-worth protective individuals tended to attribute
successes to external factors and failures to internal
factors. The inconsistency of the results could be attribute
to not having a condition in the present study in which
success and failure were actively manipulate as in previous
studies (Thompson et al., 1995). Thus, we may have
obtained a general attributional tendency that may change
in specific contexts. However, contrary to previous
research findings the stability factor of attributions was not
directly or indirectly predictive of self-worth protection
(McCarry, Edwards, & Rozario, 1982; Miller & Ross,
1975; Schlenker, Weigold, & Hallam, 1990; Thompson,
1999). Consistent with previous findings by Thompson
and his colleagues (Thompson, 1993, 1997, 1999,
Thompson et al., 1995), we found that uncertainty about
the causes of achievement outcomes and about the global
self-esteem characterize individuals who are self-worth
protective. Both self-uncertainty and external,
uncontrollable attributional patterns were predictive of a
lack of mastery goal orientation and the presence of
performance goal orientations. These results are consistent
with the findings of Thompson (1999) and Elliot and
Harackiewicz (1996) who found that mastery-oriented
students were more success-seekers and intrinsically
motivated which characterizes non-self-worth protective
individuals whereas performance avoidant students were
failure avoidant and extrinsically motivated which
characterizes self-worth protective individuals. Consistent
with Covington and Omelich (1979) and Thompson
(1999), we found that as self-worth protective behaviors
increased long term performance decreased.
Caution should be exercised in interpreting the results
of the present study. First, all of the participants were
university students who may be less self-worth protective
than the general population. This model should be tested
with middle school and high school samples to determine
the generalizability to these populations. In addition, the
present study was conducted with students from the United
States. It is unclear if these results will generalize to
individuals from other cultures. Several researchers have
noted important differences in cultures on the variables in
the present study (e.g., Crittenden, 1996; Grant & Dweck,
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas
2001; Yu, 1996), especially between individualistic and
collectivistic cultures. While Thompson (1999) asserted
that researchers have not demonstrated a gender difference
in self-worth protection behaviors, future researchers
might also check the model for differences based on
gender since many of the dimensions of personality have
been shown to vary on the basis of gender (e.g., Huber &
Podsakoff, 1985; Levy & Baumgardner, 1991; Zoller &
Ben-Chaim, 1990). Finally, the present study presents a
general model of self-worth protection and achievement
behavior. This model may not generalize to specific
academic contexts. More specialized models (e.g.,
mathematics, language, science) may better explain
achievement motivation and behavior.
If the results of the present study are maintained
through replication, several important applications can be
considered for helping self-worth protective students
change their behavior. First, self-worth protective students
need to learn to manage their anxiety levels. Anxiety
management techniques can lead to a more clearly defined
sense of self. Students also need to gain more confidence
in their abilities to achieve. Teachers can assist students in
being more certain of themselves and their abilities by
keeping accurate records that demonstrate successful
performance and asking students to explain why they were
successful. As a part of this process, students may also be
encouraged to make appropriate attributions or be given
attribution retraining programs (Thompson, 1999).
Students should also be taught to set goals that result in
mastery orientations or self-improvement rather than in
performance avoidance (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996;
Thompson, 1999). By addressing these issues, teachers can
help self-worth protective students overcome their
tendencies to reduce effort in situations of uncertainty and,
in the long-term, achieve at higher levels.
About the Authors
Dr. Dale L. Dinnel, professor of psychology at Western
Washington University, has published research on cross-
cultural conceptualisations of the self and social phobia,
achievement motivation, and the teaching and learning of
mathematics and science.
Dr. Ted Thompson coordinates research in the
Achievement Behaviour lab at the University of Tasmania.
Research in the lab focuses on failure-avoidant patterns of
behaviour, revealing key aspects of personality, clarifying
the conditions under which individuals are likely to
sabotage their performance, gathering information about
the perceived benefits of these behaviours, as well as
documenting long-term costs.
Todd Brittain, Kari Johnson, Mary King, and Kimberly
Pust are all undergraduate students at Western
Washington University. They conduct research in Dr. Dale
L. Dinnel’s Achievement Motivation lab. In addition to the
present research, their research has focused on anticipated
attributions and the consensus effect.
5
Contact Details
Dale L. Dinnel
Department of Psychology
Western Washington University
516 High Street
Bellingham, WA, USA 98225-9089
Phone: 1 (360)650-3526
Fax: 1 (360)650-7305
Email: dale.dinnel@wwu.edu
Ted Thompson
School of Psychology
GPO Box 252-30
Hobart, 7001
Tasmania, Australia
Phone: +61 3 6226 2887
Fax: + 61 3 6226 2883
Email: T.Thompson@utas.edu.au
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and
student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Baumgartner, A. H., & Levy, P. E. (1988). Role of self-
esteem in perceptions of ability and effort: Illogic or
insight? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
14, 429-438.
Benson, J., & El-Zahhar, N. (1994). Further validation of
the Revised Test Anxiety Scale. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 3, 203-221.
Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and
school achievement: An integrative review. Annual
Review of Psychology, 51, 171-200.
Covington, M. V. & Omelich, C. E. (1979). Effort: The
double-edged sword in school achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, 169-182.
Covington, M. V. & Omelich, C. E. (1985). Ability and
effort valuation among failure-avoiding and failure-
accepting students. Journal of Educational Psychology,
77, 446-459.
Craske, M. L. (1985). Improving persistence through
observational learning and attribution retraining.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 138-
147.
Crittenden, K. S. (1996). Causal attribution processes
among the Chinese. In M. H. Bond (Ed.) The handbook
of Chinese psychology (pp. 263-279). Hong Kong:
Oxford University Press.
Dinnel, D. L., & Thompson, T. (2000, October). A
validation and reliability study of the Self-Worth
Protection Scale. A poster presented at Self-Concept
Theory, Research, and Practice: Advances for the New
Millennium, Medlow Bath, NSW, Australia.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting
learning. American Psychologist, 41,1040-1048.
Edwards, J. A., Weary, G., & Reich, D. A. (1998). Causal
uncertainty: Factor structure and relation to the Big
Five Personality Factors. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24, 451-462.
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and Performance effects and attributional behavior. Journal
avoidance goals and intrinsic motivation: A of Educational Psychology, 87, 598-610.
mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Thompson, T., & Dinnel, D. L. (2001). An initial
Psychology, 70, 461-475. validation and reliability study of the Evaluation
Grant, H., & Dweck C. S. (2001). Cross-cultural response Anxiety Scale. Unpublished manuscript, University of
to failure: Considering outcome attributions with Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
different goals. In F. Salili, C.-Y. Chiu, & Y.-Y. Hong Vandewalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a
(Eds.) Student motivation: The culture and context of work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational
learning. Plenum series on human exceptinality (xxiv, and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995-1015.
pp. 203-219). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-
KluwerAcademic Publishers. evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Huber, V. L., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1985). Dispositional Psychology, 33, 448-457.
and situational moderators of female and male causal Yu, A.-B. (1996). Ultimate life concerns, self, and Chinese
attributions. Sex Roles, 13, 441-461. achievement motivation. In M. H. Bond (Ed.) The
Leary, M. R. (1983). A brief version of the Fear of handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 227-246). Hong
Negative Evaluation Scale. Personality and Social Kong: Oxford University Press.
Psychology Bulletin, 9, 371-375. Zoller, U., & Ben-Chaim, D. (1990). Gender differences in
Levy, P. E., & Baumgardner, A. H. (1991). Effects of self- examination-type preferences, test anxiety, and
esteem and gender on goal choice. Journal of academic
Organizational Behavior, 12, 529-541.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). Self-descriptive Questionnaire III
Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological
Corporation.
McCarry, M., Edwards, H. P., & Rozario, W. (1982). Ego-
relevant feedback, affect, and self-serving attributional
bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8,
189-194.
Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving bias in the
attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological
Bulletin, 82, 213-225.
Russell, D. (1982). The Causal Dimension Scale: A
measure of how individuals perceive causes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1137-1145.
Schlenker, B. R., Weigold, M. F., & Hallam, J. R. (1990).
Self-serving attributions in social context: Effects of
self-esteem and social pressure. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 58, 855-863.
Schouwenburg, H. C. (1995). Academic procrastination:
Theoretical notions, measurement, and research. In J.
R. Ferrari, J. L. Johnson, & W. G. McCown (Eds.)
Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research,
and treatment (pp. 71-96). New York: Plenum Press.
Thompson, T. (1993). Characteristics of self-worth
protection in achievement behaviour. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 63, 469-488.
Thompson, T. (1997). External attributions for success and
avoidance of failure. Psychological Reports, 81, 891-
896.
Thompson, T. (1999). Underachieving to protect self-
worth: Theory, research, and interventions. Aldershot,
England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Thompson, T., Cromer, J., & Dinnel, D. L. (2002).
Measuring academic self-handicapping: Does it differ
from general self-handicapping? Unpublished
manuscript, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
Thompson, T., Crosswell, H., & Dinnel, D. L. (2001).
Self-worth protection in mathematics: Effects of
performance feedback on attributions, claimed and
behavioural self-handicapping. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
Thompson, T., Davidson, J. A., & Barber, J. G. (1995).
Self-worth protection in achievement motivation:
6
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

Table 1
Bivariate Correlations of the Variables in the Study
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 ---
2 .73** ---
3 .44** .54** ---
4 .59** .61** .63** ---
5 -.43** -.36** -.16** -.41** ---
6 -.53** -.56** -.52** -.47** .33** ---
7 .37** .45** .36** .33** -.22** -.51** ---
8 .30** .35** .44** .33** -.23** -.48** .33** ---
9 -.21** -.16** -.16** -.27** .44** .29** -.16** -.16** ---
10 .22** .29** .38** .30** .06 -.17** .18 .15** .20** ---
11 .39** .42** .44** .61** -.38** -.43** .30 .31** -.46** .23** ---
12 -.07 -.08 -.02 -.08 .16** .02 -.07 -.01 .09 -.07 -.06 ---
13 -.03 .03 -.02 -.09 .06 -.01 -.01 .01 .09 -.01 -.09 .11* ---
14 -.18** -.18** .02 -.06 .20** .22** -.20** -.17** .01 -.09 -.05 .24** -.09 ---
15 .56** .56** .47** .60** -.59** -.63** .38** .40** -.40** .06 .52** -.11* -.05 -.17** ---
16 .16** .31** .25** .31** .03 -.09 .08 .04 .21** .41** .08 -.04 .02 .03 .05 ---
17 .36** .42** .35** .57** -.27** -.40** .30** .21** -.35** .17** .62** -.07 -.06 -.01 .50** .21** ---
18 -.11 .03 .07 -.05 .31** .18** -.10 -.04 .21** .07 -.03 .15* .13* .19** -.22** .19** -.05 ---
19 -.25** -.23** .01 -.23** .55** .16** -.07 -.06 .22** .08 -.13* .26** -.03 .19** -.29** -.09 -.06 .35** ---
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
**p < .01; *p < .05
1 = Test Anxiety; 2 = Fear of Failure; 3 = Fear of Negative Evaluation; 4 = Evaluation Anxiety; 5 = Academic Self-
Esteem; 6 = Global Self-Esteem; 7 = Causal Uncertainty; 8 = Global Self-Esteem Uncertainty; 9 = Mastery Goal
Orientation; 10 = Approach Performance Goal Orientation; 11 = Avoidance Performance Goal Orientation; 12 =
Internal Attributions; 13 = Stable Attributions; 14 = Controllable Attributions; 15 = Ability Doubts; 16 = Importance of
Ability; 17 = Avoidance Orientation; 18 = Cumulative Grade Point Average; 19 = SAT Composite

Table 2
Coefficient Alphas, Means, and Standard Deviations for Each Variable in the Study
___________________________________________________________________________
Variable α M SD
___________________________________________________________________________
Test Anxiety .91 39.38 10.62
Fear of Failure .87 24.45 8.11
Fear of Negative Evaluation .92 34.55 10.34
Evaluation Anxiety .79 61.33 12.75
Academic Self-Esteem .83 171.54 30.53
Global Self-Esteem .91 39.32 8.13
Causal Uncertainty .83 19.68 7.08
Global Self-Esteem Uncertainty .87 24.37 7.96
Mastery Goal Orientation .82 21.89 4.34
Approach Performance Goal Orientation .71 14.87 3.90
Avoidance Performance Goal Orientation .80 11.01 3.81
Internal Attributions .65 19.36 5.50
Stable Attributions .71 11.52 6.00
Controllable Attributions .58 19.73 5.71
Ability Doubts .80 19.20 6.91
Importance of Ability .79 29.07 6.11
Avoidance Orientation .80 22.63 6.61
Cumulative Grade Point Average ---- 2.81 0.61
SAT Composite ---- 1075.90 134.64
__________________________________________________________________________

7
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

Figure 1:
Model 1: A Structural Model of Self-Worth Protection and Achievement Behavior.

e1 e2

gseu cu

Self e3 e4
Uncertainty

rses ase
e5 e6 e7 e8 e9 e10

Self-Esteem
int stab con mgo pgoapp pgoav
r1

Attributions Goals

r2

fne e11

Evaluative fof e12

Threat
rtas e13
e15 ad
r3
evan e14
e16 Self-Worth
ia Protection
e17 ao r4

r5
e18 satc
Achievement
e19 gpa

8
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

Figure 2:
Model 2: An Alternate Structural Model of Self-Worth Protection and Achievement Behavior

e1 e2 e3 e4

fne fof rtas evan e5 e6

gseu cu

Evaluative e7 e8
Threat
Self rses ase
Uncertainty e9 e10 e11

r1 int stab con

Self-Esteem

r2
Attributions
r3

mgo e12

Goals pgoapp e13

e15 ad
Self-Worth pgoav e14
e16 ia r4
Protection
e17 ao r5

r6
e18 satc
Achievement
e19 gpa

9
 Self-Concept Research: Driving International Research Agendas

Figure 3:
The Final Structural Model of Self-Worth Protection and Achievement Behaviour Showing Standardized Path
Coefficients.

e1 e2

RTAS EVAN

.69 .85
Evaluative e3 e4
Threat

GSEU CU
.83 e5 e6
.44 .48
Self INT CON
Uncertainty
.39 .61
-.30
r1
Attributions r2
.85
-.19
.86
-.53 MGO e7
Goals
.85 .66 PGOAV e8

e9 AD .74 r3
Self-worth
Protection r4
e10 AO .68
-.31

e11 SATC .83

Achievement r5
e12 GPA .42

10