Failure-avoidance in situational interpretation and problem solving.

Abstract

with the collaboration of John McDavid. Jr., Princeton University I. The ProblemThe importance of understanding the relationship between personality factors and problem-solving behavior has recently become apparent (4,10,18). The purpose of the present study was to investigate several hypotheses concerning the relationship beween personality and problem-solving factors under negative conditions. That an individual's reaction to a negative state of affairs in the environment is important becomes apparent when one notes the numerous personality constructs employed to con-

Relationships among self‐ideal congruence, adjustment, and fear‐of‐failure motivation1

“…Such anxiety is particularly cued by achievement situations, where it appears as a fear of reduction m achievement-related self-acceptance or self-regard It may also, however, be expressed m a more general form as anxiety over the possible loss or reduction of self-consistency (Rogers, 1951, 1959, Lecky, 1945 or generalized self-acceptance In order to avoid devaluation or mconsistency, the FF person may be expected to exhibit defensive behaviors, particularly m achievement situations A vanety of such defensive behaviors m the FF person have been reported One type of failure-avoidant behavior is seen in defensive attempts to reduce, prior to engagement m achievement behavior, the probabihty of perceived failure Thus, FF mdividuals have been found to deny preparation for a debate (Bimey et al, 1969), set extreme values of probability of success (Hancock & Teevan, 1964), set LOAs which are very low (Bimey et al, 196O, Frank, 1935a, Sears, 1941, very high (Schroder & Hunt, 1957), or at both extremes but not m the intermediate range (Rotter, 1954, Thomas 6f Teevan, 1964 Once mvolved in the achievement situation and faced with failure, the FF may further defend agamst self-devaluation by attributmg performance responsibihty to extemal sources (Teevan & Fischer, 1966, Hunt & Schroder, 1958, denymg tihe adequacy of the performance measure (Thomas & Teevan, 1964), or repressmg failure cues provided through criticism and overevaluatmg his performance (Schroder & Hunt, 1957) More general defensiveness is seen m the FF's tendency to show low sensitivity to security-related words (McClelland & Liberman, 1949) and to failure-related words (Moulton, Raphelson, KJistofferson, & Atkmson, 1958) and to recall fewer failure stones (Reitman, 1961) Defensive behavior, when it is excessive or restnctive, has often been found to be associated with lowered levels of adjustment Of particular relevance m tins regard is the theoretical and empincal work of the Rogenan school Rogers (1951Rogers ( , 1959 hypothesized that self-acceptance or self-satisfaction is associated with mcreased adjustment and decreased defensiveness and that successful psychotherapy produces mcreases m self-satisfaction Begmmng with the early work of Butler and Haigh (1954) and Dymond (1954), a number of mvestigators have provide4 evidence supporting these theoretical relationships, mcludmg the hypothesized negative relationship between adjustment and selfsatisfaction Actually, the exact nature of the self-satisfacti...…”

Chapter VIII: Learning: II. Problem Solving and Related Topics

“…Originals were found to be more independent in judgment, more complex personalities, more self-assertive, and more given to rejecting suppression as a mechanism to control impulse behavior. Relationships were also reported between success in various problem-solving situations and the solver's attitude toward failure (81), anxiety and stress levels (19), perception of self (84), achievement motivation (27), F-scale score (83), "conformity" (69), and attitudes toward problem solving itself (41). In connection with the last relationship, Carey (11) reported findings which led her to conclude that differences in problem solving previously attributed to sex, could be interpreted more correctly as the result of a less favorable attitude toward problem solving by women.…”

Failure avoidance and concept attainment.

“…Six hundred and thirty-three students at the University of Massachusetts were given a modified version of the Criticism-Failure (CF) Subscalc devised by Schroder and Hunt (1957). A prcexpcrimental pilot study indicated that this subsaile, which had been designed for adolescents, was too naive for college students who, in general, responded at the presumably more, socially desirable, low-failureavoidancc end.…”