determinants of task-related self-evaluations in black children

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 9, 466--479 ( 1973 )

Determinants of Task-Related Self-Evaluations in Black Children 1

KENNETH L. DION University of Toronto

AND

NORMAN MILLER

University of Southern California

Black children's self-evaluations of their performance on an ambiguous task were assessed as a function of experimental variations in prior social reinforcement and subjective privacy of self-evaluation. In the private self-evaluation condition, subjects given disapproval-oriented reinforcement were less self-approving and less positive overall in evaluating their own performance than those receiving approval-oriented reinforcement. Moreover, they exhibited lower levels of aspiration on a subsequent ring-toss task. In contrast, subjects whose self-evaluations were public rather than private failed to exhibit these effects. The support these results provide for Katz's theoretical model of academic motivation among minority children is discussed.

Previous studies (e.g., Coleman et al., 1966; Mingione, 1965) clearly document the academic shortcomings and lower achievement motivation of black children compared to white children. Yet the etiology behind low achievement motivation and high academic failure among black youth is only vaguely, if at all, understood. Recent theoretical formula- tions (cf. Katz, 1967; Pettigrew, 1967), however, t ry to confront the roots of these problems by considering various social-psychological processes that might underlie deficient academic motivation in minority children. Katz (1967), for example, contends that the persistence required for academic success depends heavily upon an internalized mechanism consisting of affect-mediating self-evaluations. That is, academical ly success-

1 This research was facilitated by an NIH Predoctoral Fellowship to the first author. It was conducted while the authors were associated with the Laboratory for Research in Social Relations at the University of Minnesota. The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation received from the Bureau of Education, Archdiocese of St. Paul, and the principals of St. Peter Claver, Ascension, Cathedral, and Basilica of St. Mary parochial schools.

466 Copyright �9 1973 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

BLACK CftlLDBEN'S SELF EVALUATIONS 467

ful individuals presumably sustain their efforts toward academic goals by administering covert self-evaluations for their own strivings. In these terms, the difficulties of academically unsuccessful black pupils may stem from dysfunctional self-evaluative processes elicited in academic or achievement-related situations.

In preliminary research conducted by Katz and his colleagues to ex- plore this perspective (cf. Katz, 1967), black grade-school children as- sembled pictures and privately evaluated their own constructions. Notably, academically unsuccessful boys were more self-critical and less positive in overall self-evaluations of their performance on this ambiguous task than were academically successful boys--despite no objectively ap- parent differences in the judged quality of their products. Other findings from this research linked the children's history of social reinforcement to self-evaluative propensities and academic achievement, respectively (el. Katz, 1967; Baron, 1970). Questionnaire measures of perceived past reinforcement from parents were systematically associated with subjects' task-related self-evaluations: the greater the extent of perceived disapproval and the less the perceived approval from parents, the less favorable the boys' self-evaluations of their products. Moreover, academically ma- successful boys recalled less approval and more disapproval from their parents than did high achieving, academically successful boys.

Extrapolating from these findings, Katz (1967) suggested that perhaps low achieving, black youths likewise undermine their academic potential through overly harsh and self-defeating criticisms of their own accom- plishments. Moreover, he proposed that a history of predominantly negative social reinforcement may underlie this potentially key factor behind academic failure in black children--viz., a marked penchant for un- favorably evaluating their own achievements. Unfortunately, while this hypothesis is appealing, methodological problems seriously weaken the evidence presented in support of it.

First, since the research was correlational and precluded random as- sigmnent, the relationship between social reinforcement history and self- evaluations may be due entirely to some third variable associated with both factors. While this type of criticism can be directed against any correlational study, it gains added cogency in the present context since Katz (1967) also found that test anxiety scores were significantly inter- correlated with both perceived past reinforcement as well as proneness to self-criticism. Thus, it is conceivable that a mutual association to test anxiety underlies the obtained correlations between social reinforcement history and self-evaluation. Moreover, the questionnaire assessment of social reinforcement history is a measure without known validity. Since it is a retrospective self-report, it may have been prone to bias and/or dis-

468 ])ION AND MILLER

tortion; alternatively, it may reflect the consequences of failure rather than its cause.

A second problem stems from details of the experimental procedure. Although subjects' self-evaluations were ostensibly private, the experimenter collected their products as they were completed. This cross-cutting of operations complicates interpretation since it introduces competing, alternative explanations of the findings. 2 For example, since low achievers were also more anxiety-prone than high achievers, uncertainty concerning the experimenter's reactions to their products may have made the low achieving, black children particularly anxious; consequently, they may have exhibited marked self-criticism simply in order to reduce anxiety over anticipated adult disapproval (cf. Katz, 1967, pp. 182--183). Alter- natively, given that their products were public, Katz's subjects may have been more prone to evaluate them in accordance with perceived adult demands. Since the reinforcement history of low achievers was more negative than for high achievers, low achievers may have been more likely to believe that adults (especially white experimenters) generally expect negative self-evaluations from them, and they were therefore more self-critical in appraising their own performance. In sum, Katz and his associates fail to demonstrate that the relationship between academic achievement and covert, task-related self-evaluations really reflects an internalized product of past socialization rather than other psychological processes, such as anxiety-reduction or compliance to perceived adult demands for self-criticism.

The present study attempts to assess whether black children's evaluations of their own achievement efforts are indeed acquired in response to prior adult approval or disapproval. It avoids, however, the methodological pitfalls mentioned above. First, it directly assesses the role of actual social reinforcement in shaping the task-relevant self-evaluations of black, male children. This was accomplished by experimentally manip- ulating type of social reinforcement (viz., approval-oriented vs disapproval-oriented) that children received prior to working alone on an ambiguous task and evaluating their own performance. Moreover, dis-

~In a subsequent replication, Katz (1967, p. 162, footnote) avoided collecting subjects' task-products until all had been completed and obtained results closely paralleling those mentioned above. However, since subjects were not explicitly told that the products of their task-performance were private in either of these studies, their findings are still susceptible to the following alternative explanations. In fair- ness, though, Katz (1967) has urged inducing subjective privacy concerning both self-evaluations and task-performance in further research aimed at investigating his theoretical model.

BLACK CHILDREN'S SELF EVALUATIONS 469

approval-oriented reinforcement provided an experimental analogue to one type of social reinforcement history that may underlie tendencies toward harsh self-eriticism--viz., one where adults dispense potent negative reinforcements for failure while providing relatively mild positive reinforcements for success. Specifically, in the disapproval-oriented condition, subjects received marked criticism for incorrect responses versus only weak praise for correct responses on a social reinforcement task. In comparison, the approval-oriented condition consisted of administering marked praise versus only slight criticism for correct and incorrect responses, respectively. Second, subjective privacy of self-evaluation was also experimentally manipulated by having subjects believe that self- evaluations of their task-performance were either public or private. There- fore, if prior reinforcement influences public, but not private, self-evaluations, the underlying psychological process can be identified as mere compliance to perceived adult demands for self-evaluation. Moreover, Katz (1967) has also advocated experimentally varying subjective privacy of self-evaluation in order to (a) assess whether private self-appraisals of task-performance more validly reflect internalized self-regulatory processes than public ones, and (b) investigate the effects upon black children of revealing their level of self-esteem to others. Finally, the present study avoids crosscutting operations by covarying subjective privacy of sub- jeets' self-evaluations and their task-performance.

METHOD

Overview

Each experimental session consisted of three consecutive phases. In Phase I, sub- jeets completed 50 trials on an area-perception task, while the experimenter con- tingently administered one of two types of social reinforcement. In the approval- oriented condition, subjects received marked praise for correct responses and slight disapproval for incorrect responses. In the disapproval-oriented condition, the experimenter dispensed only slight praise for correct responses and marked criticism for incorrect responses. During Phase II, subjects worked alone on the area-perception task for an additional 30 trials, evaluated their own performance on each trial, and were led to believe that their self-evaluations and task-performance during this phase were either public or private. In Phase III, subjects played a ring-toss game; subse- quently, they completed a postexperimental questionnaire and an interview schedule.

Subiects and Experimenters

Fifty-six black males in grades 5-8 from several "inner city" parochial schools in the St. Paul-Minneapolis area served as subjects. The large majority were Catholic. However, informal evidence suggests that they were representative of inner city

470 DION AND MILLER

black children in metropolitan areas. 3 Subjects were randomly assigned to experimental conditions. There were two experimenters, both male and white. 4

Stimulus Materials and Tasks

Two experimental tasks were employed: an area-perception task and a ring-toss task. The area-perception task consisted of a set of 5 x 8 index cards each with three geometric figures stenciled horizontally across them. A set of ninety different stimulus cards was generated by randomly selecting triads of figures from a pool of eight different geometric figures and discarding replications. The subject's task was to choose the single figure on each card with the greatest area. Actually, however, all geometric figures contained identical areas.

A ring-toss game was employed in Phase III to assess generalization of any experimental effects to a different task. It consisted of a goalpost with floor markers in 1-ft intervals up to 10 ft from the goal.

Procedure

Subjects were individually tested within their own schools during normal class- room hours. When each arrived at the testing room, the experimenter first chatted with him about impersonal matters. Then he indicated that children from many different schools were participating in a study concerned with spatial-perceptual abilities and how early these abilities develop in children. These skills were alleged to be important for certain adult vocations.

Phase h Social rein[orcement. The experimenter then showed the subject ten stimulus cards from the area-perception task and instructed him to choose that geometric figure on each card with the greatest area (i.e., "the one with the largest amount of space enclosed within its borders"). No social reinforcement was given during these preliminary 10 trials--thus providing a "'free operant series" reflecting initial position preferences (i.e., right, middle, or left) for choosing figures on the area-perception cards. The position-class that was least frequently chosen in this operant series was designated as the "correct response" category for the subsequent social reinforcement phase. The most frequently employed position-class was designated as the "'incorrect response" category. Finally, the remaining position-class (the one with the middle frequency) was designated as the "neutral response" category.

Subjects then performed 50 successive trials on the area-perception task. To induce the social reinforcement manipulation, the experimenter eontingent'y administered one of two patterns of verbal reinforcements on a continuous schedule. In the ap-

3 The parochial sehools from which minority children were drawn as subjects were all located in economically depressed areas of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Moreover, religious composition of student bodies was not homogeneous. Several schools providing subjects were "open" in that they admitted non-Catholic children as students. In one school providing a majority of the subjects, Catholic children comprised about 50g~ of the students at the time of the study. Overall, the percentage of Catholic children across schools was approximately 75-80~.

4 Considerable effort was expended toward obtaining black male experimenters for the present study so that race of experimenter could be included as an independent variable; these efforts, however, proved fruitless. The results should nevertheless apply to blaek ehildren in school settings in that they predominantly face white teachers. In this respect, the sex rather than the race of the experimenters is perhaps a greater curtailment on external validity.


proval-oriented condition, subjects received enthusiastic praise for correct responses (e.g., "That's very good," "you're doing quite well") and only slight rebuffs for incorrect responses (e.g., "No, not quite," "I wouldn't agree with you there"). In the disapproval-oriented condition, they received only cursory praise for correct responses (e.g., "urn-hum," "O.K.") and strong criticism for incorrect responses (e.g., "That's not good at all," "you're doing quite badly" ). In both conditions, neutral responses were not reinforced. After finishing 50 trials, they were told that they would complete an additional set of 30 stimulus cards from the area-perception task working by themselves.

Phase II: Self-evaluation and individual task-performance. As before, subjects were told to select the figure on each card with the greatest area. This time, however, they indicated their choices on an answer sheet provided for that purpose. In addition, the experimenter told them to indicate their personal evaluation of each choice by circling one of five comments (viz., "very good," "good," "not so good," "bad," or "don't know"). The experimenter's final set of comments constituted the manipulation of subjective privacy. In the public sel#evaIuation condition, subjects were told to indicate their names on the answer sheet so that each person's work could be clearly identified. On the other hand, those in the private sel#evaIuation condition were told that their work in this phase was to be anonymous and that they should not indicate their name on the answer sheet. These latter instructions were given under the ra- tionale that the experimenter was primarily interested in children's performance in general and not with any particular individual's performance.

During the self-evaluation phase, the experimenter was absent from the experimental situation in order to minimize "demand" cues by virtue of his presence. Prior to leaving, he told those in the private self-evaluation condition that when they completed their answer sheets they should put them in a folder placed before them. The folder contained unsigned bogus answer sheets, Each subject's answer sheet was, of course, unobtrusively marked and retrieved after he left the experimental situation.

Phase III: Ring-toss and postexperimental measures. Subjects then cmnp]eted three plays on the ring-toss game under the pretext that, like the area-perception task, it furnished information about a child's spatial-perceptual abilities. On each play, the subject selected a marker from which to throw rings at the target and also estimated how many ringers he expected out of four tosses.

Subjects then completed a postexperimental questionnaire consisting of several sections. The first section requested evaluations of tim experimenter on the dimensions strong-weak, approving-disapproving, pleasant-unpleasant, good-bad, fair-unfair, and rewarding-punishing. The second section included several ratings of the area- perception task: viz., enjoyable-unenjoyable, interesting-boring, useful-nseless, rewarding-punishing, pleasant-threatening, and good-bad. Another section requested them to recall and rate their emotional reactions while performing the area-perception task during the experiment. These ratings included the dimensions relaxed-tense, happy-sad, interested-bored, cahn-anxious, and good-bad. In each of the aforementioned cases, the bipolar items incorporated "25-paint rating scales and were scored - 1 2 to +12. Last, a final section of individual items assessed the perceived importance of doing well on the area-perception task, an estimate of their percentage of correct choices while working a!one on the area-perception task, and the extent to which they wanted the experimenter to approve of their choices.

After they had completed the postexperimental questionnaire, the experimenter interviewed subjects to determine their awareness of contingencies during the social reinforcement phase (cf. Dulany, 1962) and whether they believed instructions con-

472 DION A N D M I L L E R

cerning the privacy or nonprivacy of their self-evaluations and individual task-performance. 5 He also questioned them about their personal reactions toward the study and encouraged them to discuss their feelings about different aspects of the study. He emphasized to all subjects that the study had nothing whatsoever to do with their academic work. Finally, before they departed, he informed them that they had performed capably on the various tasks, better than many older children. There was no evidence in any subject of any lingering effects from the prior manipulation of disapproval.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Initially, three-way ANOVA incorporating experimenter as the third factor were performed upon the dependent variables. These analyses showed no effects attributable to experimenter. Consequently, the analyses reported below disregard the experimenter factor.

To minimize potential problems arising from awareness of response- reinforcement contingencies, the area-perception task had been deliber- ately devised to be ambiguous for subjects. An analysis of the awareness interviews by a judge unfamiliar with the purpose of the study showed that this goal was achieved. On the basis of interview protocols, only seven subjects-- three in the approval-oriented condition and four in the disapproval-oriented condi t ion--were "aware" in the sense of being able to correctly verbalize the contingencies employed during the social reinforcement phase. Moreover, analyses including and excluding "aware" subjects were performed on the dependent variables and showed no sub- stantive differences. Consequently, awareness concerning social reinforcement is not considered in the discussion of the results.

Manipulation Checks

Ratings of the experimenters and the area-perception task were included in the postexperimental questionnaire as indirect assessment of whether experimental variations in social reinforcement had their in- tended impact upon subjects. For both types of ratings, scores on individual items were pooled to yield a composite index reflecting general favorability. An ANOVA on the composite ratings of experimenters revealed a main effect for type of social reinforcement ( F = 4.09; df = 1,49; p < .05). 6 As anticipated, subjects receiving approval-oriented re-

5 Two subjects in the private self-evaluation condition (one from each of the two reinforcement conditions ) indicated in postexperimental interviews that they did not believe that their self-evaluations had been private. These subjects were excluded from the analyses along with another subject in the disapproval-oriented, public self- evaluation cell who failed to complete any measures during the self-evaluation phase.

Because of unequal cell frequencies, all ANOVA were performed with un- weighted-means solutions.

4 7 4 D I O N A N D M I L L E R

0 - +2o g~

3 ~ >~

b + 1 0 e{ ~ g N ~ ~ + 5 2 o

~ APPROVAL-ORIENTED SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT

-- --.-,o DISAPPROVAL-ORIENTED SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT

e. I

I I PR IVATE P U B L I C

Fro. 1. Task-related self-evaluations as a function of type of reinforcement and subjective privacy of self-eva]uation.

correct" choices, respectively, showed no significant effects whatsoever. Likewise, there were no differences among the experimental conditions on the perceived percentage of correct choices on the area-perception task as indicated by subjects on the postexperimental questionnaire. Thus, any obtained effects upon self-evaluation cannot be attributed to any perceived or "objective" differences in task-performance; rather, they must reflect a more generalized, self-evaluative bias attributable to the experimental manipulation of social reinforcement and/or subjective privacy.

Composite self-evaluation. An ANOVA on composite self-evaluation scores revealed a significant interaction between type of social reinforcement and subjective privacy of self-evaluation (F = 5.51; df = 1,49; p < .05). Figure 1 depicts this interaction and presents the means for each experimental condition. Pair-comparisons of means reveal several significant contrasts, s First, under subjective privacy, subjects given disapproval-oriented reinforcement evaluated their choices less favorably than those receiving approval-oriented reinforcement ( t = 4.75; 24 dr; p < .01), whereas, when self-evaluations were public, type of social reinforcement had no effect ( t = 1.53; 25 dr; not significant). Also, among subjects receiving disapproval-oriented reinforcement, task-related self- evaluations were more favorable in the public rather than the private condition (t = 2.30; 24 dr; p < .05); conversely, for those receiving approval-oriented reinforcement, self-evaluations were more favorable under subjective privacy (t = 3.67; 25 dr; p < .01 ).

Self-approval. An ANOVA on those self-evaluation scores indicating

8 All p values reported for t tests are two-tailed.


self-approval likewise revealed a significant interaction between social reinforcement and subjective privacy (F = 4.37; d[ = 1,49; p < .05). Pair-comparisons showed primarily that, under subjective privacy, subiects in the approval-oriented condition were more approving of their task performance than subjects in the disapproval-oriented condition (t = 2.43; 24 d[; p < .05).

Sell-disapproval. Analysis of self-disapproval scores only revealed an interaction trend which failed to reach an acceptable level of significance (F = 2.40; d[ = 1,49; not significant).

Emotional Reactions

The post-experimentally administered self-evaluations of emotional reactions can be viewed as parallel in some respects to the self-evaluations of task performance in that both measures can be converted to a self- evaluation along the evaluative dimension (good-bad). Therefore, similar outcomes might be expected for the two. However, given that the tem- poral distance between the experimental manipulations and measn:'ement was greater for emotional reactions, the effects might well be weaker. Also, self-evaluations of emotional states seem to be somewhat less directly related to a manipulation of external approval of task performance. This too should result in weaker effects for the emotional reaction measure. An ANOVA on the composite of emotional reactions revealed a marginal crossover interaction (F = 3.11; d[ = 1,49; p < .10), similar to that obtained for the composite self-evaluation and self-approval indices. Pair- comparisons of means did not reveal any significant contrasts. However, the fact that the pattern of means is similar to that found for the other self-evaluation measures can be taken as further confirmation of those findings.

Tactical Sell-Presentation

Though the self-evaluation data generally conform to theoretical expectations, some of the aforementioned results are nevertheless rather curious. For example, why do subjects receiving approval-oriented reinforcement evaluate their own performance less favorably when self-evaluations are public rather than private? Likewise, why do subjects receiving disapproval-oriented reinforcement evaluate themselves more favorably when self-evaluations are public rather than subjectively private? One possible explanation is that, in combination with prior social reinforcement, public self-evaluation elicited attempts at tactical sell-presentation (cf. Schneider, 1969). According to this view, an individual whose self-esteem is heightened by virtue of favorable interpersonal evaluations or social comparisons will be strongly motivated to avoid disap-

478 DION AND MILLER

tion among minority children in demonstrating that prior social reinforcement is indeed an influential determinant of black children's covert (i.v., private) evaluations of their own achievement efforts.

Counter to initial expectations, however, the variations in social reinforcement employed in the present study failed to elicit reliable differences in covert self-criticism (the self-disapproval component of the composite self-evaluation). According to Katz's (1967) formulation, this distinctly negative or self-debasing component of the self-evaluative task should have reflected the social reinforcement manipulation. Perhaps our reinforcement manipulation does not reproduce all the essential fea- tures in the reinforcement-history of academically disadvantaged black youths. For example, in contrast to our own conjectures, Katz (1967) has speculated that significant adults upon whom the overly self-critical black child is dependent may dispense frequent negative reinforcements while withholding positive ones. If so, an induction varying the frequency of positive versus negative reinforcements may be more successful in clarifying the etiology of achievement-related self-criticism in black children. Alternatively, the failure to obtain variations in self-criticism as a function of differential reinforcement may be attributable to having employed white experimenters. Perhaps by virtue of negative interracial encounters, black children develop strong expectaFons of being devalued by white adults and, consequently, actively defend against reflecting white evaluations, whether positive or negative, in self-criticisms. These speculations indicate the desirability of investigating race of experimenter in mediating the influence of social reinforcement upon task-related self- evaluations by black children; it may reveal interesting interactions between race of social reinforcer and different types of self-evaluative responses (i.e., self-approval vs self-criticism).

Other results of the preceding analyses illustrate the importance of focusing upon subjectively private self-evaluations in research aimed at exploring Katz's theoretical model. It appears that in the context of social reinforcement, public self-evaluations might reflect self-presentational ploys aimed at eliciting or maintaining approval. Moreover, since success and failure also elicit tactical self-presentation (Schneider, 1969), those interpersonal strategies may also have implications for black children in actual, academic settings. For example, self-enhancement in the face of failure may contribute to conflicted and confused self-images as well as unrealistic aspirations among academically unsuccessful black students. This speculation, of course, presumes that the "presented self" is accepted as genuine by the actor himself. Yet, as Schneider (1969, p. 9.63) provoca- tively notes: " . . . self-presentation (may be) used as a self-convincing device, in the sense that the mere act of presenting one's self in an attrac-


tive manner makes it easier to accept this self as genuine . . . . " What- ever the case, investigating processes such as these may help further clarify the probably complex underpinnings of academic failure in minority youth.

Finally, there was also some suggestive evidence that covert self-evaluations may influence achievement-related behavior on another task. Sub- jects whose private self-evaluations were more favorable as the result of receiving approval-oriented reinforcement also exhibited a higher level of aspiration on a different task; moreover, covert self-approval and subsequent level of aspiration were positively correlated among these subjects. These results suggest that exploring the motivational consequences of covert task-related self-evaluations may be potentially frnitful.

REFERENCES

BARON, R. M. The SRS model as a predictor of Negro responsiveness to reinforcement. The Journal of Social Issues, 1970, 26, 61-42.

COLEMAn, J. S., CAMPBELL, E. Q., HOBSON, C. J., McPARTLAr~O, J., MooD, A. M,, WEINFELn, F. D., & YORK, R. S. Equality of educational opportunity. Washin~- ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.

DVLANY, D. E., Jl~. The place of hypotheses and intentions: Analysis of verbal con- trol in verbal conditioning. In C. W. Eriksen (Ed.), Behavior and awareness. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1962. Pp. 102-120.

KATZ, I. The socialization of academic motivation in minority group children. In D. Levine (Ed.)., Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln, Nebraska: Uni- versity of Nebraska Press, 1967. Vol. XV, pp. 133-191.

MINGIONE, A, Need for achievement in Negro and white children. Journal oJ Con- sut, ting Psychology, 1965, 29, 108-111.

PETTICREW, T. F. Social evaluation theory: Convergences and applications. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln, Nebraska: Uni- versity of Nebraska Press, 1967. Vol. XV, pp. 241-311.

SCHNEInER, D. J. Tactical self-presentation after success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 13, 262-268.

(Received Febrnary 2, 1973)

determinants of task-related self-evaluations in black children

Documents