ch8-1.pdf

3 8 The Trait Approach Relevant Research Achievement Motivation Type A, Hostility and Health Social Anxiety Emotions Optimism and Pessimism DNY59/E+/Getty Images Summary Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to el...

3 8 The Trait Approach Relevant Research Achievement Motivation Type A, Hostility and Health Social Anxiety Emotions Optimism and Pessimism DNY59/E+/Getty Images Summary Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 166 Chapter 8 / The Trait Approach I recently took some time to conduct a brief, partially scientific survey. I examined the three most recent issues of the Journal of Personality, the Journal of Research in Personality, and the personality section of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. These journals are prominent outlets for current research on personality. Of the 45 articles with empirical studies I found in these journals, 40 included at least one trait measure. That is, in 88.9% of these studies, researchers measured individual differences and used these scores either to compare people who fell on different parts of a trait continuum or to predict scores on another measure. This finding supports an assertion I have made for a while: The trait approach has become so entrenched in personality research today that, for many psychologists, personality research is synonymous with measuring and examining traits. A more rigorous study than mine found that the use of trait measures in personality research not only is extensive but also has steadily increased over the past few decades (Swann & Seyle, 2005). Using trait measures has become so widespread that it is part of the research arsenal for experimenters in all of the approaches to personality covered in this book. In addition, if you were to conduct a similar survey of research journals in developmental psychology, social psychology, clinical psychology, industrial-organizational psychology, and other fields, I suspect you would find a liberal use of trait measures. Although personality researchers have studied dozens and dozens of traits in depth, we’ll look at five areas of research that illustrate the breadth and depth of the trait approach. We first examine research on achievement and achievement motivation. Then we’ll look at a personality concept that came to the attention of trait researchers via the medical community. The Type A behavior pattern and measures of hostility have been used by medical professionals to identify candidates for heart disease. We’ll also examine how personality research helps psychologists understand a common interpersonal problem, namely social anxiety. Next, we will explore research on individual differences in emotions. Although our emotions vary depending on the events we encounter, personality psychologists can identify relatively stable patterns in how we experience and express our feelings. Finally, we will look at research on optimism and pessimism. That work suggests that how typically optimistic or pessimistic we are in our approach to life has many important implications. Achievement Motivation I f you are like most people, you probably can’t recall a time when you weren’t being evaluated and perhaps compared with others on what you have achieved. Throughout our lives—from the earliest assessments of our reading and counting abilities in preschool and kindergarten through athletic competitions, science projects, grade point averages, every kind of award, honors, titles, positions, and promotions—there is always something out there for us to achieve. Western cultures in particular e­ mphasize personal achievement. It is rare to find a parent in these cultures who doesn’t wish for and encourage his or her children to achieve in school and elsewhere. Given this emphasis on achievement, it should come as no surprise that research on individual differences in achievement motivation has a long history in psychology. Much of the initial work in this area was based on one of the needs identified by Henry Murray—the need for Achievement, that is, the desire “to accomplish something Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Achievement Motivation 167 Jerry Burger/Santa Clara University difficult; to master, manipulate or organize … to overcome obstacles and attain a high standard; to excel one’s self” (1938, p. 164). Early researchers measured the strength of a participant’s need for Achievement by coding the participant’s responses on the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). As described in Chapter 3, the TAT asks test takers to create stories about what is going on in each of a series of ambiguous pictures. To get an idea of how this might work, look at the picture on this page. What is happening in that scene? Who do you think this person might be? Think of a story you could tell about him. If your story is about a man deep in thought on his way to accomplishing something of value, you likely have a strong need for Achievement. But if you saw a man bored with his job daydreaming about where he would rather be, your response would probably yield a low need for Achievement score. Researchers using this procedure tied need for Achievement to a large number of behaviors and outcomes (McClelland, 1961, 1985; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953; Stewart, 1982). These investigators were particularly focused on entrepreneurial behavior. That is, they wanted to understand achievement in the business world rather than, for example, the arts or sciences. They discovered that people with a high need for Achievement do not always fit our stereotypes of a highly successful businessperson. For example, we might guess that someone with a high need for Achievement is not afraid to take huge risks to get ahead. But as it turns out, high need achievers are only moderate risk takers. They engage in business ventures with a moderate chance of failure but avoid highly speculative investments despite potentially large payoffs. Predictably, people with a high need for Achievement tackle their work with a lot of energy. But high need achievers don’t work hard at everything. Unchallenging, routine jobs hold no more interest for high need achievers than they do for anyone else. Not surprisingly, researchers also found that people with a high need for Achievement were more likely than others to find economic prosperity (Littig & Yeracaris, 1965). But a high need for Achievement can sometimes be a two-edged sword. The Who is this person? What is he doing? How will things turn out? Whether you see a man thinking about a difficult business problem or dreaming about going fishing may indicate your own level of need for Achievement. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 168 Chapter 8 / The Trait Approach same need to achieve that helps some people succeed can at times interfere with effective performance (Winter, 2010). Success in upper management and executive positions often depends on the manager’s ability to delegate authority and motivate others. Someone too concerned about his or her own accomplishments might have a difficult time relinquishing control over details and effectively relying on subordinates. This may explain why one study found need for Achievement predicted success for low-level managers but not for those higher up the corporate ladder (­McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). One intriguing study examined the need for Achievement and effectiveness among American presidents (Spangler & House, 1991). Presidents whose inaugural speeches indicated a high need for Achievement were usually rated by historians as relatively ineffective leaders. Gender, Culture, and Achievement Much of the early work on need for Achievement was conducted with only male participants. There are reasons for this. When the research was initiated in the 1950s, relatively few women entered the business world and even fewer had opportunities to advance into high managerial positions. However, things have obviously changed quite a bit since then. As career aspirations and opportunities for women changed, researchers found a comparable increase in need for Achievement among women college students (Veroff, Depner, Kulka, & Douvan, 1980). And, as with men, researchers found that a high need for Achievement also predicts success in the business world for women (Jenkins, 1987). However, researchers find that many other variables come into play when looking at the relationship between gender and achievement (Hyde & Kling, 2001; Mednick & Thomas, 2008). For example, men and women often think about achievement in different ways (Eccles, 1985, 2005, 2014). Because of differences in gender-role socialization (Chapter 14), men and women may differ on the kinds of achievement they value and how high career achievement ranks among their personal goals. A businesswoman might value success at work, but on occasion she may put other concerns—such as the welfare of her customers—ahead of her personal accomplishments. We see examples of this in women who sometimes make sacrifices for their family rather than pursue career goals. Other investigators find that men and women sometimes differ in the way they define success (Gaeddert, 1985). Men in our society are more likely to see success in terms of external standards, such as gaining prestige or recognition for accomplishments. In contrast, women are more likely to rely on internal definitions of success, such as whether they accomplish what they set out to do. Rather than ask why women don’t always act like men in achievement settings, a better question might be why men and women sometimes make different choices in these settings. Similar caution should be exercised when looking at achievement behavior in different cultures (Salili, 1994; Shechter, Durik, Miyamoto, & Harackiewicz, 2011). In individualistic countries like the United States (Chapter 1), achievement is typically defined in terms of personal accomplishments. Individual effort is rewarded, and people are singled out for their successes. However, in collectivist cultures success is more likely to be defined in terms of cooperation and group accomplishments. Workers in a collectivist culture might Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Achievement Motivation 169 have a strong sense of accomplishment when they do their part and the entire company reaches its goal (Niles, 1998). Individual recognition is not sought and is not needed. Workers in individualistic cultures often see themselves in competition with their coworkers, and this competition motivates them to work harder. In contrast, one team of researchers found that corporate professionals in India were concerned about the emotional and financial well-being of their coworkers (Tripathi & Cervone, 2008). Instead of trying to outperform them, these Indian businesspeople were motivated to help their coworkers succeed. In short, concepts like achievement motivation that focus on the individual may not be useful when studying behavior in a collectivist culture. New definitions for achievement and success may be needed to fully understand achievement behavior in different societies. Attributions Imagine for a moment that you have just received an F on a midterm exam (remember, this is only hypothetical). How would you react? Because passing the class is important to you, you will no doubt spend part of the next few days trying to figure out why you did so poorly. You might conclude there was something peculiar about the test— the ­professor selected bizarre points to test on or wrote ambiguous questions. Another ­possibility is that personal problems kept you from studying as much as you would have liked. Then again, you might decide that you really don’t have what it takes to be a college student, no matter how hard you study. Your emotional response to the poor midterm grade and how well you do on the next test depend in part on which of these explanations you adopt. If the problem is not studying enough, you can set aside extra time for the next exam. But if the problem is a lack of ability, there may be little reason to try next time. This example illustrates another approach researchers take when trying to understand achievement. Many psychologists are interested in the explanations people generate for why they do well or poorly in achievement situations (Weiner, 1985, 1990, 2006). According to this approach, we often ask ourselves why we have failed or succeeded. The answer to this question—our attribution—determines how we feel about the performance and how we perform in similar situations in the future. There are many ways to analyze the kinds of attributions people give for their successes and failures, but researchers typically focus on three dimensions (Table 8.1). One is the stability dimension. We can explain our performance by pointing to stable causes, such as intelligence, or to unstable causes, such as luck. In addition, an attribution may be either internal to us, such as the amount of effort put forth, or external, such as a difficult test. Researchers refer to this dimension as locus. Finally, there is the dimension of control—whether we can control or not control the cause of the success or failure. By examining attributions along these three dimensions, researchers can predict how people respond to successes and failures. For example, performing well on a test, being promoted in an organization, or winning a tennis match should enhance your sense of well-being, but only if you believe the reason for success is internal. If you win a tennis game because your opponent is a lousy player or had the sun in her eyes (external attributions), you probably won’t feel very good about the victory. How a person responds to future events often depends on the perceived stability of the cause Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 170 Chapter 8 / The Trait Approach Table 8.1 Three Dimensions for Attributions Stability Locus Control Stable Attributions Unstable Attributions Good coordination Good luck Poor math attitude Illness (such as cold) Internal Attributions External Attributions Extra effort Easy test Poor skills Difficult competition Controllable Attributions Uncontrollable Attributions High motivation From wealthy family Not enough practice Weak national economy of the performance. If you lose the tennis match because your opponent is a better player (stable), you probably will not expect to win next time you two play. However, if you attribute the loss to bad luck (unstable), you might be eager for a rematch. This analysis helps explain why most people continue to participate in sports, even though not everyone can be a winner. Researchers find that most of us attribute our losses to unstable sources, thus keeping alive our hope of winning the next time (Grove, ­Hanrahan, & McInman, 1991). This analysis also suggests a relatively easy way to improve achievement motivation—change people’s attributions. One team of researchers did just that with a group of college freshmen (Perry, Stupnisky, Hall, Chipperfield, & Weiner, 2010). The students were enrolled in a two-semester psychology course. After receiving their grade on the first fall semester exam, half the students attended an attributional retraining session. These students were told that many freshmen have difficulty with their classes and that it was possible to improve. In particular, the students were encouraged to make controllable attribution for their performances (e.g., I need to develop better studying strategies). Not only did these students do better on their exams the next semester than students who did not attend the session, but the attributional retraining also helped them in other classes. As shown in Figure 8.1, regardless of how well they performed on the initial test, students who attended the attributional retraining sessions had higher overall GPAs than students who did not receive this training. The implications for education, sports, the business world, and other achievement domains are obvious. Achievement Goals Achievement is not only determined by how we account for performances after the fact, but also by the goals we set for o ­ urselves at the outset (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). Achievement goals provide targets that people aspire to in achievement situations. Although terminology and classification schemes vary, most investigators divide achievement goals into two broad categories: mastery goals and performance goals. Mastery goals are concerned with developing competence. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Achievement Motivation Figure 8.1 GPA as a Function of Attribution 4.00 Source: Perry, R. P., Stupnisky, R. H., Hall, N. C., ­Chipperfield, J. G., & Weiner, B. (2010). Bad starts and better finishes: Attributional retraining and initial performance in competitive achievement. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29, 668–700. First Year GPA Retraining 3.35 3.00 2.00 171 Top Third 3.72 3.05 2.57 Middle Third 1.81 Bottom Third 2.15 Students motivated by a strong mastery goal will 1.00 No Attribution work hard to learn the Attribution Retraining subject matter in a course. Retraining Satisfaction comes from a sense of proficiency and a feeling that they understand the material. Performance goals are concerned with demonstrating accomplishments to others. Students motivated by strong performance goals want to obtain a high grade, possibly the highest grade in the class. Satisfaction comes from receiving the recognition that accompanies the achievement. In the typical classroom, we can usually find two students who work equally hard preparing for tests and completing assignments, and who achieve similar grades, yet who are motivated by very different goals. One of these achieving students wants to learn the material. This student is motivated to overcome challenges and to obtain a sense of competence. The other achieving student is likely to ask what he or she needs to do to get a good grade and then arrange his or her study time to obtain the desired outcome. But people aren’t just motivated to succeed. Sometimes they are more concerned about not failing. Thus psychologists also find it useful to draw a distinction between approach goals and avoidance goals (Cury, Elliot, Da Fonseca, & Moller, 2006; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Van Yperen, 2006). As shown in Figure 8.2, by dividing both mastery and performance into approach and avoidance categories, we create a 2 by 2 model of achievement goals. Within this framework, students trying to learn difficult material (mastery goal) can be motivated either by a desire to achieve a sense of mastery (approach) or by a wish to not feel incompetent (avoidance). Similarly, students who rely on performance goals might be motivated to gain recognition for their accomplishments or to avoid the embarrassment of a poor performance. Because achievement motivation has important implications in education, business, and many other areas of our lives, psychologists have asked whether some achievement goals are more effective than others. Is it better for students to focus on learning the material or on obtaining a good grade? Can teachers alter assignments and grading policies and can business managers change the way they evaluate and reward employees to improve learning and productivity? Although both mastery and performance goals motivate people to achieve, investigators often find differences between people who seek competence and those who focus on recognition. Most of this research has compared the effects of mastery and performance goals, and investigators consistently find that mastery goals lead to high achievement (Dompnier, Darnon, & Butera, 2009; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007; Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 172 Chapter 8 / The Trait Approach Absolute/ Intrapersonal (Mastery) Valence Definition Normative (Performance) Positive (Approaching Success) MasteryApproach Goal PerformanceApproach Goal Negative (Avoiding Failure) MasteryAvoidance Goal PerformanceAvoidance Goal Figure 8.2 Achievement Goal Framework Source: From Elliot and McGregor (2001). Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007). Students motivated by mastery goals often choose more challenging tasks and are more interested in their classes than students who rely on performance goals. When given the choice between two assignments, mastery-­oriented students are likely to select the one they are more curious about, whereas students relying on performance goals want to know which will lead to a better grade. A student interested in learning the material is unlikely to ask, “Will this be on the test?” People motivated by mastery goals also tend to retain the information and skills they learn longer than those driven by performance goals. A piano student whose goal is to master a difficult concerto is likely to remember the piece longer than the student who simply wants to sound good at the recital. Similarly, people motivated by mastery goals often continue their interest in the material after recognition for the achievement has passed (Rawsthorne & Elliot, 1999). The student who reads Charles Dickens with the goal of obtaining a deeper appreciation for fine literature is more likely to read good books during the summer than the student who reads Dickens only to do well on the exam. Performance goals also affect how well individuals work in groups (Darnon, Dompnier, Delmas, Pulfrey, & Butera, 2009; Poortvliet & D ­ arnon, 2010). People who approach tasks with a mastery orientation are more likely to share information and work with others to achieve common goals, whereas those with a performance orientation tend to see others as competition. This is not to say reliance on performance goals is all bad. Both mastery and performance goals can lead to achievement (Richardson, Abraham, & Bond, 2012), and it is possible to aspire to both a sense of mastery and recognition for accomplishments. In some cases, researchers find that a combination of mastery and performance goals can be particularly effective (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002; Senko & Harackiewicz, 2005). However, Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Achievement Motivation 173 Assessing Your Own Personality Achievement Goals Indicate with a number from 1 to 7 the extent to which each of the following statements is true about you in the class you are currently taking. A response of 7 indicates the statement is very true about you; 1 indicates the statement is not at all true about you. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. It is important for me to do better than other students. I worry that I may not learn all that I possibly could in this class. I want to learn as much as possible from this class. I just want to avoid doing poorly in this class. It is important for me to do well compared to others in this class. Sometimes I’m afraid that I may not understand the content of this class as thoroughly as I’d like. It is important for me to understand the content of this course as thoroughly as possible. My goal in this class is to avoid performing poorly. My goal in this class is to get a better grade than most of the other students. I am often concerned that I may not learn all that there is to learn in this class. I desire to completely master the material presented in this class. My fear of performing poorly in this class is often what ­motivates me. The scale provides a score for each of the four kinds of achievement goals. Add the following answer values to obtain your scores: Mastery-Approach goals (items 3, 7, and 11); Mastery-Avoidance goals (items 2, 6, and 10); PerformanceApproach goals (items 1, 5, and 9); Performance-Avoidance goals (items 4, 8, and 12). Use the following means and standard deviations obtained from college undergraduates (Elliot & McGregor, 2001) to interpret your scores: Mastery-Approach Mastery-Avoidance Performance-Approach Performance-Avoidance Mean Standard Deviation 5.52 3.89 4.82 4.49 1.18 1.53 1.68 1.67 Scale: The Achievement Goal Questionnaire Source: Elliot and McGregor (2001). the advantages of focusing on performance appear to be limited to performance approach goals (Darnon, Harackiewicz, Butera, Mugny, & Quiamzade, 2007; Elliot, Shell, Bouas, & Maier, 2005; Roney & O’Connor, 2008). Students motivated only by Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.