Induction of threat to self-esteem and the arousal and resolution of affect

Millimet, C. Raymond; Gardner, Dennis F.

doi:10.1016/0022-1031(72)90072-8

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most consistent finding in these investigations was that feedback which was more positive than expected produced a more favorable affective reaction than that which was more negative than expected (Feather, 1969;Harvey & Clapp, 1965;Ilgen, 1971;Locke, 1967;Millimet & Gardner, 1972;Spector, 1956;Verinis et al, 1968). While this is hardly shocking, it is significant.…”

Section: Verbal Report Measuresmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Second, there is no support for the strong consistency effect of Aronson and Carlsmith (1962), in which negative expectancy subjects were assumed to be more discomforted by success than by failure. In fact, in some studies the preference for positive evaluations seems as strong, if not stronger, for negative expectancy subjects as for positive expectancy subjects (Feather, 1969;Millimet & Gardner, 1972;Spector, 1956). The only times negative expectancy subjects reported more unpleasant affect following positive than following negative feedback were when the affect assessed was tension (Brickman, 1972;Cottrell, 1967).…”

Section: Verbal Report Measuresmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The studies employing verbal report measures of affective reactions to feedback have been less standardized in methods and theoretical perspective. Initial expectancies were varied both by manipulation (e.g., Ilgen, 1971) and subject selection (e.g., Millimet & Gardner, 1972). The specific tasks on which feedback was given have differed, although all but one have involved some form of intellectual competence (Brickman, 1972;Feather, 1969;Ilgen, 1971;Locke, 1967;Millimet & Gardner, 1972;Spector, 1956;Verinis, Brandsma, & Cofer, 1968), and that one used general personality characteristics (Harvey & Clapp, 1965).…”

Section: Verbal Report Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Responses to evaluation as a function of initial self-perceptions.

Js¹

1975

Psychological Bulletin

385

334

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between favorability of one's initial attitudes toward himself and his reactions to evaluative feedback was examined. In accord with consistency theories, evaluations consistent with one's initial expectancies were more accurately retained, given more credence, and assumed to result more from one's own abilities than were those which were inconsistent. Affective reactions were more in line with self-enhancement views: They were more favorable to positive than to negative evaluations, and this was as much, if not more, the case for people with negative expectancies as for those with positive expectancies. Other theoretical implications were discussed as well as ambiguities and limitations in the available evidence.

show abstract

Section: Verbal Report Measuresmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Verbal Report Measuresmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Verbal Report Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Responses to evaluation as a function of initial self-perceptions.

Js¹

1975

Psychological Bulletin

385

334

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Common responses to threats include making external attributions for failure (e.g., Millimet & Gardner, 1972;Shrauger & Lund, 1975), shifting attention to perceived positive characteristics (e.g., Aronson, Blanton, & Cooper, 1995;Dodgson & Wood, 1998), and engaging in risky behaviors (e.g., Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1993;Twenge, Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Bartels, 2007). Importantly, each of these strategies provides people with a chance to rapidly realign their situational self-feelings with their desired self-feelings.…”

Section: How Do People React To Threat?mentioning

confidence: 97%

Compensating, Resisting, and Breaking: A Meta-Analytic Examination of Reactions to Self-Esteem Threat

vanDellen

Campbell

Hoyle

et al. 2010

Pers Soc Psychol Rev

142

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much research has identified how people react to receiving threatening information about the self. The purpose of this article is to discuss such experiences in the context of a model of state self-esteem regulation. The authors propose that people engage in one of three regulatory responses to threat: compensation, resistance, and breaking. They conduct a meta-analysis aimed to examine when people engage in each of these three responses to threat and how trait self-esteem affects the selection and success of selecting each regulatory response. Furthermore, the authors test six theoretical models that might explain why responses to ego threat vary across level of trait self-esteem. The models for differences between people with low and high trait self-esteem that fit the data best suggest that (a) self-esteem serves as a resource and (b) there is a self-verification motivation.

show abstract

“…The literature that bears on this problem is complex and not well organized. Although there is good evidence that subjects receiving discrepant outcomes are more tense and more uncertain about the permanence of these outcomes (Brickman, 1972;Cottrell, 1967;Feather, 1969;Grzelak, 1965), there is virtually no support for the dissonance prediction in studies employing direct measures of outcome satisfaction (Harvey & Clapp, 1965;Ilgen, 1971;Millimet & Gardner, 1972;Verinis, Brandsma, & Gofer, 1968).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Expectancy, feedback, and disconfirmation as independent factors in outcome satisfaction.

Weaver¹,

Brickman²

1974

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research on the expectancy disconfirmation problem has been unjustified in concluding that no disconfirmation effect exists because (o) proper tests for the effect were conducted only for low-expectancy subjects and (6) cumulative effects of expectancy disconfirmation comparable to the cumulative effects of winning or losing were never assessed. The present study achieved these ends by unconfounding overall performance expectancy and expectancies, outcomes, and disconfirmations on individual trials. Ninety-six student subjects were given either high or low overall expectancies and then played a series of 20 games. On each game, subjects made outcome predictions that were confirmed either 25%, S0%, or 7S% of the time, independently of overall expectancies, trial outcomes, and overall feedback. A loss on a particular trial was less satisfying when unexpected and a win on a particular trial was more satisfying when expected only for subjects with high overall expectancies. Cumulative expectancy disconfirmation had a negative effect on all of the subjects.

show abstract

Induction of threat to self-esteem and the arousal and resolution of affect

Cited by 6 publications

References 12 publications

Responses to evaluation as a function of initial self-perceptions.

Responses to evaluation as a function of initial self-perceptions.

Compensating, Resisting, and Breaking: A Meta-Analytic Examination of Reactions to Self-Esteem Threat

Expectancy, feedback, and disconfirmation as independent factors in outcome satisfaction.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About