Self-handicappers erect impediments to performance to protect their self-esteem. The impediments may interfere with the ability to do well and, as such, may result in poor adjustment. Using a longitudinal design, the present studies examined prospective effects of self-handicapping on coping, academic performance, and several adjustment-related variables (e.g., self-esteem). It was found that, compared to low self-handicappers, high self-handicappers reported higher usage of coping strategies implying withdrawal and negative focus. High self-handicappers performed less well academically, an effect that was mediated in part by poor study habits. Finally, high self-handicapping resulted in poorer adjustment over time, and poorer adjustment resulted in higher self-handicapping over time. These relations are consistent with the idea of a vicious cycle in which self-handicapping and poor adjustment reinforce one another.
It was hypothesized that visual depictions that are lower in "face-ism" (i.e., showing less of the face and more of the body) elicit impressions of lower power. It was thus predicted that depictions of a discriminated-against minority would be lower in face-ism than those of a dominant majority. Four data sets showed lower face-ism in visual displays of Blacks than in those of Whites: Pictures from American and European periodicals, American portrait paintings, and American stamps (the portraits and the stamps showed the effect only when created by Whites). The race difference in faceism for the American periodicals was maintained even when the race difference in status was held constant. A final study showed that high face-ism photographs received higher dominance ratings than low face-ism photographs. Face can be used to imply confrontation (e.g., face-to-face)-a meaning that is consistent with the link between face-ism and dominance.
86This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Scales were constructed to measure perceived control over controllable events (realistic control) and perceived control over uncontrollable events (unrealistic control). Internal reliability, test-retest reliability, and discriminant validity of both scales were adequate. Study 1 measured perceived personal control over hassles that judges rated on general controllability. For hassles very high in controllability, perceived personal control was related to belief in realistic control but not to belief in unrealistic control; for hassles very low in controllability, perceived personal control was related to belief in unrealistic control but not to belief in realistic control. Study 2 showed that participants high in unrealistic control belief (but not those high in realistic control belief) persevered more on a task that was in part uncontrollable. Study 3 showed that the combination of low realistic control belief and high unrealistic control belief predicted poorer future health, particularly for participants who have reported the experience of many negative events and/or hassles. The conditions under which unrealistic control results in maladaptive outcomes are discussed.
To assess the effects of discrepancy between two independent variables, investigators sometimes compute difference scores and correlate such scores with a criterion variable. However, the correlation of the difference with the criterion is accounted for by the correlations of the difference constituents with the criterion and the constituents' variances. It follows that when investigators are testing a prediction that is not captured by the difference constituents' main effects, using the difference correlation analysis may be misleading. Under these circumstances, the effects of a discrepancy between two independent variables can be assessed by a test of their interaction. The problems inherent in using difference scores and the advantage of testing the interaction are illustrated in relation to research programs on two separate topics in social psychology.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.