predicting emotional concomitants of learned helplessness: the role of motivational orientation

Sex Roles, VoL 25, Nos. llH2, 1991

Predicting Emotional Concomitants of Learned Helplessness: The Role of Motivational Orientation

Ann K. Boggiano, Marty Barrett, Louise Silvern, and Susan Gallo University of Colorado, Boulder

Previous theoretical and empirical analyses indicate that an extrinsic motivational orientation, i.e., performing activities to please others or concern with criticism, predicts the cognitive and behavioral deficits associated with learned helplessness. Conversely, intrinsically motivated students, who perform activities for the inherent pleasure of mastery over challenge, have been shown to be virtually resilient to successive failure experiences and even show a facilitation effect. However, research has not yet addressed the extent to which motivational orientation predicts the emotional deficits associated with helplessness--namely, depression and a maladaptive attributional style. Furthermore, no research has examined the relative predictability of these variables to investigate subjects' feelings after an experimental manipulation of failure. The present research found support for the proposition that an extrinsic motivational orientation predicts depression and the Expanded Attributional Style Questionnaire. More importantly, our findings demonstrated that an extrinsic motivational orientation was a more reliable predictor of subjects' feelings after a failure manipulation than either depression or a maladaptive attributional style. These findings are discussed in light of intervention strategies to attenuate the development of an extrinsic motivational orientation in students.

Recent theoretical and empirical analyses have begun to examine processes underlying propensity to the development of helplessness deficits. These approaches have primarily focused on students' differential reasons or goals for undertaking academic tasks. Two interrelated approaches have investi- gated this issue: Dweck and Leggett's (1988) performance vs. learning goals

577

0360-0025/91/1200-05775136.50/0 © 1991 Plenum Publishing Corporation

578 Boggiano et ai.

theory and Boggiano and Barrett's (1985) theoretical stance on motivational orientation (intrinsic vs. extrinsic) as predictors of helplessness deficits.

The present paper will first review empirical evidence relevant to these theoretical analyses as determinants of the cognitive and behavioral deficits associated with helplessness. However, the major purpose of the present study is to present evidence, using both experimental and correla- tional methods, to assess divergent goal orientations of students which ren- der them vulnerable to the emotional deficits of helplessness--an issue important from both a theoretical and practical standpoint that has received little empirical attention.

According to Dweck and Leggett (1988), students often undertake activities for performance goals, i.e., to exhibit to self or others a sense of competence, or for learning goals, i.e., to develop competence or master activities. Support for this perspective has been provided in one recent in- novative study (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). The induction of performance goals in the form of being evaluated by experts and highlighting adequacy of performance produced performance impairment, preference for easier activities and attributions to uncontrollable causes following failure feedback. These effects occurred only under a performance goal induction when an additional manipulation led children to perceive themselves as having low ability for the target task. In contrast, an induction of learning goals in the form of telling children that they might make mistakes but would learn useful things in the absence of an evaluative context did not produce the helpless pattern in spite of failure feedback, regardless of whether ability level was manipulated to be high or low.

From a similar theoretical vantage point, Boggiano and Barrett (1985) have emphasized students' reasons for undertaking activities and the manner in which they evaluate their performance as important predictors of achievement patterns, including helplessness deficits. For students with an extrinsic orientation, the reasons for initiating an activity have an external locus of causality (deCharms, 1968; Deci & Ryan, 1987), e.g., desire for approval, concern over evaluation, or to obtain tangible reward. The outcome is often not contingent on effort, e.g., a teacher's mood state or the quality of the performance of peers. In contrast, intrinsics have an internal locus of causality for initiating activities. As demonstrated by Harter (1981), they undertake activities because of the inherent pleasure derived from overcoming challenge and interest in learning for its own sake. Moreover, intrinsics use self-evaluative as opposed to other evaluative means as do extrinsics, e.g., teacher's approval, to assess performance quality. These divergent reasons for initiating and evaluating academic tasks lead to different percept ions of effor t -outcome independence. More specifically,

Emotional Concomitants of Helplessness 579

extrinsics see powerful others or uncontrollable factors rather than effort as the primary reason for performance outcome (Boggiano, Barrett, Main, & Katz, 1985).

Several studies support the proposition that extrinsics relative to intrinsics attribute outcome less to effort--the cognitive deficit of helplessness--and also manifest the behavioral deficits of helplessness--namely, performance decrement following failure feedback. In one study, for example (Boggiano & Barrett, 1985), students were provided with either failure feedback or no evaluative feedback on their performance on a spatial ability task. Following failure feedback, only subjects with an extrinsic motivational orientation showed performance and motivational impairment on a generalization task, i.e., anagrams. In contrast, the performance of students varying in motivational orientation did not differ under conditions in which external feedback was not provided.

In addition, Boggiano and Barrett (1991-a) found that extrinsics but not intrinsics demonstrated helplessness deficits, i.e., lowered quality of so- phistication of hypothesis-testing strategies, following failure feedback. As predicted, the attributions children made for their performance also dif- fered as a function of motivational orientation: intrinsics focused on effort whereas extrinsics gave external (e.g., the task) or "don't know" responses. Moreover, examining the verbalizations children made while working on the failure problems, intrinsics made statements reflecting expectations of future success and concerns about improving strategies, whereas extrinsics made statements displaying negative affect or defensive verbalizations, e.g., "At least I'm missing math class." Finally, teacher's assessment of children's mastery-oriented vs. helpless behaviors in the classroom were related to children's motivational orientation, such that mastery-oriented behaviors were associated with an intrinsic orientation and helpless behaviors with an extrinsic motivational orientation.

To sum, the research findings described thus far suggest that an extrinsic motivational orientation predicts the cognitive and behavioral deficits associated with helplessness. However, research has not yet addressed the extent to which motivational orientation predicts the emotional deficits associated with helplessness--namely, depression and a negative explanatory style. Moreover, although much research has demonstrated that depression is associated with and predicted by a maladaptive attributional style (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus, & Seligman, 1986; Peterson & Seligman, 1984), no research data has examined the relative predictability of these variables to investigate subjects' feelings after an experiment manipulating failure.

Thus, while our primary question was to examine whether an extrinsic orientation predicted reactions to failure, the issue of the extent to which

580 Boggiano et al.

measures of depression and maladaptive attributional style predicted subjects' responses following failure was also of interest. Thus, our three pre- dictions were as follows. First, we expected that extrinsics would be more likely than intrinsics to report depressive symptoms, as indexed by their responses on the Beck Depression Inventory (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 1986). In addition, we predicted that extrinsics would be more vulnerable to the development of a maladaptive attributional or explanatory style for negative outcomes than intrinsics. In accord with the diathesis-stress model of helplessness (Peterson & Seligman, 1984), we expected that a manipulation that induced thoughts about failure in a desired outcome would have a more detrimental effect on the mood state of extrinsics, in comparison to intrinsics. Finally, on a more explanatory basis, we examined the proposition that motivational orientation would mediate subjects' responses to the failure manipulation in a more reliable manner than would depression or maladaptive attributional style, per se.

METHOD

Subjects

Ninety-seven college undergraduates (47 men and 50 women) partici- pated in a two-session study in partial fulfillment of an introductory psychology course requirement. Subjects were led to believe the two sessions, held one week apart, were unrelated, and that the researchers conducting the two projects had combined them only to recruit subjects and to facilitate data collection.

Session I

In the first session, subjects completed four questionnaires, counter- balanced across subjects, purportedly to give researchers a "better idea of college students' self-perceptions."

Measures

Demographics. This questionnaire asked for the subject's gender, year in school, and ACT and/or SAT scores.

Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, 1967). The BDI is a well- validated self-report measure of depression. The BDI has been found to correlate highly with clinical ratings of depression derived from psychiatric


interviews with college students (Bumberry, Oliver, & McClure, 1978). The BDI assesses severity of 21 common depressive symptoms such as sleep disturbance, guilt, and sadness, with responses coded on a 0-2 scale. A total score is computed by summing across responses to the 21 items, with higher scores indicating severity of depression.

Expanded Attributional Style Questionnaire (EASQ; Peterson & Seligman, 1984). The EASO assesses the level of respondents' maladaptive or negative explanatory style, i.e., the extent to which they attribute causes of negative events to internal (vs. external), stable (vs. unstable), and global (vs. specific) factors. The EASQ represents to respondents a series of 24 events, e.g., "You give an important task in front of a group and the audi- ence reacts negatively." Subjects are asked to imagine each event happening to them, and to state what the most probable cause would be if the event did happen to them. They then rate each self-generated cause on 7-point scales for its degree of internality, stability, and globality. In addition, as an index of a tendency for rumination (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1987), we added an item that asked subjects how likely they would be to think back over each event, its cause, and their feelings about it.

The EASQ is an expanded version of the Attributional Styles Ouestionnaire (ASO; Peterson, Semmel, von Baeyer, Abramson, Metalsky, & Seligman, 1982). Validity of the ASO has been demonstrated by research showing that ASQ scores predict the actual attributions subjects make for specific life events (Metalsky, Halberstadt, & Abramson, 1987; Peterson & Seligman, 1984). The EASO contains the 6 positive and 6 negative events from the ASO, as well as 12 negative events from the Life Events Ouestionnaire (Marx, Garrity, & Bowers, 1975). Some events on the EASO are achievement related (e.g., "You are fired from your job"), some affiliative or interpersonal (e.g., "Your best friend tells you that you are not to be trusted"), and some do not fall clearly into either of those domains (e.g., "You confront a serious conflict in your values").

A number of scores may be derived from the EASO, e.g., mean scores across the internal, stable, and global dimensions for positive and for negative events. Most previous research, however, has used a composite score derived by taking the mean across the internal, stable, and global dimensions across all of the negative events (Peterson & Seligman, 1984; Peterson et al., 1982). In addition, to examine whether depressive reactions of stressors within a given content domain are best predicted by attributional style for outcomes in that particular domain, some researchers have examined scores on achievement-related items separately from scores on interpersonal or affiliative items (Metalsky et al., 1987; see also Peter- son & Barrett, 1987). For all scores for negative events, higher scores (range 1-7) indicate a more maladaptive explanatory style, e.g., an in-

582 Boggiano et al.

creased tendency to posit greater internal, stable, and global attributions for negative events. For positive events, a maladaptive attributional style is indicated by lower scores, i.e., attributing success to external, unstable, and specific factors.

Motivational Orientation Measure. A modified version of Harter's (1981) Scale of Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom was used to assess motivational orientation. Harter's scale is a measure of the extent to which children are extrinsically or intrinsically oriented toward learning. The scale consists of items tapping theoretical dimensions of an intrinsic vs. extrinsic orientation (Harter, 1978, 1981): (1) Learning for curiosity vs. learning to please the teacher, (2) preference for challenge vs. preference for easy work, (3) attempts at independent mastery vs. de- pendence on the teacher's direction/help for doing work, (4) independent judgment vs. reliance on teacher's judgment, and (5) reliance on internal vs. external criteria for success and failure. The modified version substi- tuted the word "students" for "children/kids" and "professor/teaching as- sistant" for "teacher" to make the scale more appropriate for college subjects. This version has been employed in previous research (Main, 1987), and found to have the same factor structure and comparable loadings as the original measure. 1 In addition, the modified version for adults was found to have reliability estimates within the same ranges as those reported for the original measure (Harter, 1981; Main, 1987). Although separate scores may be computed for individual subscales, we used subjects' mean scores across all items, as in previous research (e.g., Boggiano & Barrett, 1985, 1991). Scores range from 1 to 4; higher scores indicate more of an intrinsic motivational orientation and lower scores a more extrinsic one.

Session 2

One week after completing the questionnaires, subjects returned for the second session, conducted by a different experimenter.

1Using Harter's (1981) procedure, Main (1987) performed a factor analysis and determined the adult version of the scale had the same five-factor structure as the other measure, with items loading on factors representing each of the five underlying theoretical dimensions of motivational orientation and no items systematically crossloading on other factors. Harter (1981) reported loadings ranging from .46 to .53 while Main (1987) found loadings ranging from .35 to .88. Reliability across the five scales for the adult version ranged from .65 to .79, comparable to the original scale, ranging .68 to .84.


Overview

During the second session, subjects listened to audiotaped scenarios about one achievement and one interpersonal situation, and imagined the situations happening to themselves. The order of the scenarios was coun- terbalanced across subjects. Half of the subjects heard scenarios with positive outcomes, whereas the remainder heard negative outcomes. The design, then, was 2 (gender) by 2 (achievement vs. interpersonal domain) by 2 (positive vs. negative outcome). Domain was a within-subjects variable, and gender and outcome were between-subjects factors (i.e., either positive or negative outcomes were presented to each subject). Following each audi- otape, subjects were given a list of adjectives and rated how they felt in response to the situation they had just imagined.

Measures

Scenarios. The two scenarios consisted of one achievement and one interpersonal situation. There were two versions of each, identical except for the ending: one had a positive ending and the other a negative one. The number of words in each scenario was virtually identical. Pretesting of the scenarios was conducted with a sample of undergraduates (29 per scenario). Results indicated that these subjects could identify equally well with the scenarios, and found them equally imaginable. Likewise, there were no differences among the scenarios in how important subjects reported the scenarios would be were they to happen to them (pretest subjects were divided equally between extrinsic and intrinsic subjects, based on a median split on responses to the revised version of the Motivational Orientation Questionnaire).

The achievement situation involved preparing for, taking, and receiv- ing the results for an important midterm exam. Following are excerpts:

It is the week before an important midterm in a course that is certainly essential for your major. Getting a good grade on the midterm virtually guarantees you a good grade in the course, but a poor score on this exam means you would really have to study hard and to do extremely well on the final even to pass the course. The instructor is reminding you how important this midterm is in determining your final grade. Think of where you are sitting in class and what is going on around you. (pause). Think about the place where you are studying for the exam. Where are you? Think about the sight and sounds of the place where you are studying. (pause) Wha t are you wearing, and what do you have with you? (pause) Wha t things do you do as you begin to s t u d y ? . . . Wha t thoughts go through your mind as you study? (pause) What are you f ee l i ng? . . . You are in the classroom. The instructor is passing out the exam. Where are you sitting, and what is going on around you? (pause) You receive your copy of the exam. How does the test paper feel in your hands? What are you feeling? What goes through your mind? (pause)

584 Boggiano et ai.

You begin the exam. Take a few moments to think about taking the exam--what goes through your mind--how your body feels . . . . It is several days later. The tests are being returned . . . . Others around you receive their papers. Some smile--it is clear they did well. Others clearly did not do well. What are you thinking and feeling? (pause) You receive your test paper.

Subjec t s rece ived one of the fol lowing ou tcomes :

Positive outcome:

You unfold the paper and see that you did very well. Your score is well above average, and you've done even better than you'd hoped. You're virtually assured a good grade in this important course.

Negative Outcome:

You unfold the paper and see that you did very poorly. Your score is well below average, and you've done much worse than you'd feared. You'll have to do extremely well on the final to pass this important course.

All subjec ts rece ived the fol lowing final ins t ruct ions:

You've received your grade. Take a few moments to think about what goes through your mind. What do you think about? How do you feel? How does your body feel? What do you do after you leave class? (1 minute pause)

The interpersonal s i tua t ion involved p lann ing for and work ing o u t the de- tai ls involved in get t ing t o g e t h e r with a very close old f r iend who now lives ou t o f town and who has no t b e e n seen in a very long t ime. T h e a t t e m p t to a r r ange the visit e i the r succeeds o r fails. In the la t te r case, to ma in ta in a d is t inc t ion f rom the ach ievemen t domains , any impl ica t ion o f i n t e rpe r - sonal re jec t ion was avoided.

Mood. To assess sub jec t ' s m o o d s ta te , 20 adjec t ives were se l ec t ed f rom the Mul t ip le Af fec t Adjec t ive Check List ( M A A C L ; Z u c k e r m a n & Lubin , 1965). Subjec ts r a t e d each adject ive on a 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) scale. A b r o a d range of adject ives was se lec ted , inc luding competent, surprised, threatened, guilty, modest, disappointed, content, excited, irritated, peaceful, bored.

Procedure

Smal l g roups o f subjects were sea t ed in a d imly lit r o o m such tha t t hey were no t facing one ano ther , and asked to get as c o m f o r t a b l e as pos - sible. P r io r to l is tening to the scenar ios , subjects h e a r d t a p e - r e c o r d e d in- s t ruct ions . A ma le and female voice a l t e rna t e d r ead ing the ins t ruct ions , a n d this p r e p a r e d subjects for the a l t e rna t ion of the i r voices dur ing the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the scenar ios . Subjec ts were gu ided th rough each s i tua t ion by aud io t ape . A t the beg inn ing of each tape, they fol lowed a ser ies o f s teps


designed to help them relax and facilitate their ability to imagine the scenes (e.g., by relaxing muscles, closing their eyes, breathing deeply, etc.).

Subjects were asked to imagine themselves in each situation, and to imagine how they would think, feel, and respond in the situation. They were told that after listening to the tape, they would answer several questions about the situation and how it "felt to them." It was emphasized that we were interested in their responses to and feelings about the situation if it happened to them, not factual details of the scenario.

After hearing the first scenario, subjects rated the degree to which their current mood could be described by each of the 20 adjectives. In addition, subjects answered several questions designed as manipulation checks. There was then a 5-minute pause during which subjects did not talk with one another but were encouraged to read the student newspaper (copies were made available), while the experimenter asked each subject for his/her student ID number and filled out a completion-of-experiment care for each of the subjects. Subjects then heard the second situation, which also began with the series of relaxation instructions. After listening to the second scenario, subjects again made mood ratings on the 20 adjectives and answered the manipulation check questions. Following completion of these measures, subjects were thanked and debriefed regarding the hypotheses of the study.

RESULTS

The present research examined the following hypotheses: (1) in general, extrinsics would report more depressive symptoms than intrinsics, (2) extrinsics would be more vulnerable than intrinsics to a maladaptive attributional or explanatory style for negative events, and (3) a manipulation that induced thoughts about failure to obtain a desired outcome would have a more detrimental effect on the mood state of extrinsics in comparison to intrinsics. Further, we explored the possibility that these effects would be mediated to a greater extent by motivational orientation, rather than depression or a maladaptive attributional style per se.

All analyses examined gender and experimenter effects. Because there were no significant main effects or interactions involving these variables, they will not be discussed further.

To examine the hypothesis that extrinsics would report more depressive symptoms than intrinsics, subjects' mean scores on the Motiva- tional Orientation measure were correlated with their responses on the BDI. This correlation was significant [r(93) = -.38, p < .001], indicating that more extrinsic scores were indeed associated with greater reported

586 Boggiano et al.

depressive symptoms. 2 Furthermore, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on BDI responses as a function of an extrinsic or intrinsic orientation (categorized by a median split on responses to the Motiva- tional Orientat ion measure). The results indicated that extrinsics' depression scores were significantly higher than those of intrinsics [F(1, 93) = 5.48, p < .05, M = 8.2 vs. 5.5 for extrinsics and intrinsics, respectively].3

We then examined our prediction that extrinsics would report more of a maladaptive explanatory style than intrinsics. The correlation between subjects' motivational orientation and their composite score across in internal, stable, and global dimensions for negative events from the EASQ was marginally significant [r(92) = -.20, p < .06], indicating more extrinsic orientations were associated with greater maladaptive attributional styles. Furthermore, an ANOVA on composite scores as a function of an extrinsic and intrinsic orientation indicated extrinsics had significantly more of a maladaptive explanatory style than intrinsics IF(l, 90) = 6.75, p = .01; M = 4.52 vs. 4.22 for extrinsics and intrinsics, respectively]. Examining both negative achievement and interpersonal events separately, we found that extrinsics had significantly more of a maladaptive explanatory style than intrinsics; for achievement [F(1, 90) = 4.61, p < .05; M = 4.70 vs 4.38 for extrinsics and intrinsics, respectively] and for interpersonal events [F(1, 90) = 4.93, p < .05, M = 4.33 vs. 4.06 for extrinsics and intrinsics]. Thus, as predicted, extrinsics reported more depressive symptoms than intrinsics and evidenced a maladaptive explanatory style, which has been shown to be a risk factor for helpless deficits in the face of stress or a negative life event (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1987; Peterson & Seligman, 1984; see also Abramson et al., 1978).

The final hypothesis was that following exposure to a manipulation that induced thoughts about a negative outcome, extrinsics would be more susceptible to negative affect about the self, e.g., self-blame, a concomitant of helplessness. All analyses were first conducted including the domain factor (achievement vs. interpersonal). Because no effects involving this variable approached significance, we collapsed across the achievement and interpersonal situations, and recomputed all analyses. The domain factor wilt not be discussed further.

2Main (1987) also found a negative correlation between BDI scores and motivational orientation in a different sample of college students [r(57) = -.33, p < .01]. In addition, we replicated this finding with a different sample during the pretest for the present study [r(29) = -.19, p < .05].

3In the analysis examining BDI scores that included gender, there was a marginal main effect for gender IF(l, 89) = 3.16,p < .08], indicating that women tended to report more depressive symptoms than men (M = 7.74 vs. 6.02 for women and men, respectively).


Prior to testing the hypothesis that extrinsics would be more susceptible to negative affect about self following thoughts about a negative outcome, a principal-components factor analysis using varimax rotation was conducted on the MAACL adjective ratings subjects made following exposure to the situations (mean ratings across the achievement and interpersonal scenarios). Adjectives were rated on 1-7 scales and coded so that higher scores indicated a more negative mood. This factor analysis generated a three-factor solution with one factor accounting for most of the variance. Words that loaded on other factors were dropped and the analysis repeated. This factor analysis produced a one-factor solution with an ei- genvalue of 5.19, accounting for 74.2% of the variance. The seven words that loaded on this factor were incompetent, (not) confident, guilty, disappointed, anxious, hopeless, and insecure (all loadings were between .80 and .92). All subsequent analyses were conducted using the factor scores obtained from this analysis. In addition, all analyses were conducted using mean scores across these seven adjectives, and virtually identical results were obtained. For ease of presentation, analyses using the mean scores are reported below and are labeled as subjects' mood scores.

A regression analysis was conducted in which subjects' mood scores were regressed on outcome (positive vs. negative), gender (male vs. female), motivational orientation, depression (score from the BDI), maladaptive explanatory style scores for negative events (from the EASQ), and the interactions among all predictor variables. In addition, standardized national test scores (SAT/ACT scores) and rumination (i.e., the question on the EASQ about how likely subjects would be to think back over each event, its cause, and their feelings about it) were included as covariates.

This analysis indicated that none of the interactions involving either depression or explanatory style approached significance. Thus, we dropped all interactions involving depression and explanatory style, and repeated the analyses. The initial set of predictors, then, included motivational orientation, outcome (positive vs. negative), and their interaction, with depression, explanatory style, rumination, and standardized national test scores included as covariates.

Subjects' mean mood ratings were regressed on this final set of predictors. This analysis indicated that, overall, more negative mood ratings were associated with those with more extrinsic than intrinsic orientations [t(73) = -3.28, p = .001]. Significantly more negative mood ratings were also reported in the negative than positive outcome, [t(73) = -3.36, p < .001]. More important, however, was the significant interaction found between motivational orientation and outcome [t(73) = 2.52, p < .01]. As shown in Fig. 1, those with more extrinsic scores were significantly more affected by the negative outcome, reporting more negative mood states

588 Boggiano et al.

._=

ee

-o o o

4 -

3 -

2 -

1 -

0

Pos i t i ve Negative

Extrinsic

* Intrinsic

Outcome

Fig. 1. Mean mood ratings for extrinsics in the positive versus negative outcome conditions. High ratings indicate more negative mood.

than their intrinsic counterparts. Finally, although depression was marginally significant [t(73) = -1.76, p < .08], its regression coefficient indicated it contributed very little to the overall equation.

We also examined mood ratings with the positive and negative outcome separately with motivational orientation, depression, explanatory style, standardized national test scores, and rumination as predictors. Within positive outcomes, no predictors approached significance. Within negative outcomes, however, only motivational orientation was a significant predictor [t(38) = -2.82, p < .001]. These results are consistent with the previously repor ted interaction be tween motivational orientat ion and scenario outcome, i.e., that extrinsics experienced significantly more negative affect about self following the negative outcome than did intrinsics (see Fig. 1).

We were also interested in the relative strength of motivational orientation, attributional style, and depression as predictors of mood. A series of hierarchical regressions were conducted using only these three predictors. All possible entry orders were examined (e.g., motivational orientation, depression, attributional style; motivational orientation, attributional style, depression; depression, attributional style, motivational orientation; etc.). In all equations, only motivational orientation was a significant predictor, and only motivational orientation produced a significant change in adjusted R 2. That is, once motivational orientation was taken into account, depression and/or attributional style could not account for variance beyond that accounted for by motivational orientation. Conversely, motivational


orientation significantly accounted for additional variance once depression and/or attributional style were taken into account. 4

Finally, we examined the manipulation check questions. These questions were asked after each scenario, and asked subjects how easy each scenario had been to imagine and to identify with, how important, and how much they cared about the outcome (on 1-7 scales with 1 = not at all and 7 = very much). There were no differences on any of these questions as a function of any of the predictor variables. In addition, means for all questions were above 5.0.

In addition, we wished to examine further the relation between motivational orientation and affective indices of helplessness. With a sample of 166 college students, we employed an idiographic measure developed by Higgins (the Selves Questionnaire, 1987, 1989 which assesses the discrepancy between individual's reports of traits they believe they possess ("actual" self) versus traits to which they strive but have not attained ("ideal" self). Higgins (1987) has shown that the larger the discrepancy between the actual and ideal self, the more dejection or sadness reported (see also Boggiano & Barrett, in press-c).

Based on our findings from study 1, we predicted that an extrinsic motivational orientation would be related to a larger self-discrepancy between actual and ideal self than would an intrinsic orientation. Indeed, the correlation between motivational orientation and actual-ideal discrepancy was significant [r(164) = -.22, p < .004], such that the more extrinsic the motivational orientation, the greater the self-discrepancy. In addition, extrinsics mean self-discrepancy score was significantly different from that of intrinsics IF(l, 164) = 9.15,p < .003, M = -.49 vs. M = -1.65, for extrinsics and intrinsics, respectively; lower scores on the self-discrepancy scale indicate lower levels of self-discrepancy].

DISCUSSION

The results presented here provide strong support for hypotheses. First, extrinsics reported more depressive symptoms than intrinsics. Second, extrinsics reported larger actual-ideal self-discrepancies, previously shown to be associated with sadness and dejection (Higgins, 1987). Third, extrinsics were found to have a more maladaptive attributional style than intrinsics. Fourth, a manipulation that induced thoughts and feelings about failure to achieve a desired outcome had a more negative and dramatic effect on the mood state of extrinsics in comparison to intrinsics, whereas

4Results of the individual regression analyses are available from the authors.

590 Boggiano et al.

there were no differences in the feeling states of extrinsics and intrinsics following a positive outcome. Finally, the exploratory hypothesis--that these negative mood states following failure might more likely be mediated by motivational orientation and not depressive symptoms or a maladaptive attributional style--was confirmed.

Interestingly, gender differences were not obtained on any of the measures. Although at first glance this pattern of data may seen surprising, because women in general are three times more likely than men to experience feelings of dejection (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1987), gender differences in depression have not typically been reported in college samples (Nolen- Hoeksema, 1987; however, see Boggiano & Barrett, in press--a). One possible explanation for the absence of gender differences in depression in college students is that women with exceptionally good mental health, i.e., those who are not depressed, are a "select" sample, and attend college in spite of socialization factors that deter them to other career patterns. On the other hand, men who attend college may simply be more representative of men in general, perhaps because men are socialized to attend college to a greater extent than women, regardless of depression level. This hypothesis receives support from Radloff (1975), who found women to be more depressed than men when including in the sample of women who were n o t attending college. Thus, it appears that the absence of gender differences in depression in college students does not generalize to the rest of that age group not in college. Clearly, additional research is needed to investigate the underlying processes that explain differences in depression between young women who attend college and those who do not.

The absence of gender differences in negative mood state following a negative outcome in the interpersonal scenario may seem particularly surprising given findings that women continue to strive for highly positive, in- timate relationships (Boggiano & Barrett, in press--a), often at the expense of caring for themselves (Boggiano, Duval, & Shields, 1991). Thus, women might have been expected to report higher importance and identification ratings of the interpersonal scenario than men, which was not the case. Because females typically view interpersonal relationships as more important than do males, perhaps they tend to blame themselves when negative interpersonal events occur. So in designing negative outcomes that specifically prevented self-blame, we may have mitigated women's negative response to the imagined interpersonal scenario (as opposed to an actual event in which the explanation for the outcome could be more ambiguous). Further investigation is needed to determine conditions under which negative interpersonal events may affect women more than men.

Consistent with our present findings, in a recent study conducted with third and sixth graders, we again found extrinsics to be more depressed


than intrinsics, as indexed by their responses on Harter and Nowakowski's (1987) Dimensions of Depression Profile for children (Boggiano & Barrett, in press--b). More specifically, in this study extrinsic children reported more hopelessness, less energy, lower self-worth, and more negative mood states than did intrinsics. Perhaps because extrinsics are more concerned with approval by others and successful grades, they may be more negatively affected by less than "optimal" grades or mild negative interpersonal outcomes than intrinsics. It may also be the case that children of extrinsic parents have very high expectations for their children, thereby increasing children's concerns about grades and approval. We are currently conducting a longitudinal study to examine parents' and teachers' beliefs about what is "acceptable" and "desired" behavior for their children.

The present research expands on previous findings with regard to the domains in which extrinsics may display maladaptive responses relative to intrinsics. Much previous work has demonstrated that extrinsics display maladaptive responses in achievement-related domains, e.g., learned helplessness and low standardized test scores (Boggiano & Barrett, 1985, 1991). The present research, however, also found extrinsics to be more dependent, to blame themselves more for negative events, and to display more negative affect following an induction emphasizing feelings and thoughts about achievement and interpersonal events. Taken together, these data suggest that extrinsics show not only the cognitive and behavioral deficits of helplessness, but also the emotional.

Finally, the question arises as to whether motivational orientation is malleable. To address this issue, we are conducting a three-year longitudinal study in which we are examining whether children exposed to different motivational strategies as they progress through the school years, i.e., controlling vs. autonomous, can shift motivational orientation. For example, can students with an extrinsic orientation adopt an intrinsic orientation if exposed to autonomy-promoting strategies (Boggiano, Barrett, Shields, Flink, & Seelbach, 1991-c; Deci, Nezlek, & Sheinman, 1981)? We are also exploring ways to increase resilience to the detrimental effects of extrinsic constraints (see also Amabile & Hennessy, in press).

REFERENCES

Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.

Amabile, T. M., & Hennessy, B. A. (in press). In A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievement and motivation: A social developmental perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

592 Boggiano et al.

Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects. New York: Harper & Row.

Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1985). Performance and motivational deficits of helplessness: The role of motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1753-1761.

Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1991). Maladaptive achievement patterns: The role of motivational orientation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (in press--a). Gender differences in depression in college students. Sex Roles.

Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (in press--b). Gender differences in depression in young children as a function of motivational orientation. Sex Roles.

Boggiano, A. K., Barrett, M., Shields, A., Flink, C., & Seelbach, A. (1991--e). Use of controlling techniques: Effects on students' performance and standardized test scores. Unpublished manuscript. University of Colorado, Boulder.

Boggiano, A. K., Duval, S., & Shields, A. (1991). Eating disorders: The mediating role of self and other nurturnace. Unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Boggiano, A. K., Barrett, M., Main, D. S., & Katz, P. (1985). Mastery motivation in children: The role of an extrinsic vs. intrinsic orientation. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association, Chicago.

Bumberry, W., Oliver, J. M., & McClure, J. N. (1978). Validation of the Beck Depression Inventory in a university population using psychiatric estimate as the criterion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 150-155.

deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.

Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, L. (1981). Characteristics of the rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 1-10.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.

Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human Development, 21, 34-68.

Hatter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology, 17, 300-312.

Harter, S., & Nowakowski, M. (1987). Manual for the Dimensions of Depression Profile for Children and Adolescents. Denver, CO: University of Denver.

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.

Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 93-136). San Diego: Academic Press.

Main, D. S. (1987). The effects of positive feedback on preference for challenge: The mediational role of task-inherent information. Doctoral thesis submitted to the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Marx, M. B., Garrity, T. F., & Bowers, F. (1975). The influence of recent life experience on the health of college freshmen. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 19, 87-98.

Metalsky, G. I., Halberstadt, L. J., & Abramson, L. Y. (1987). Vulnerability to depressive mood reactions: Toward a more powerful test of the diathesis-stress and causal median components of the reformulated theory of depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 386-393.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1987). Sex differences in unipolar depression: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 259-282.


Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J. S., & Seligman, M. E. (1986). Learned helplessness in children: A longitudinal study of depression, achievement, and explanatory style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 435-442.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk factor for depression: Theory and evidence. Psychological Review, 91, 347-374.

Peterson, C., Semmel, A., yon Baeyer, C., Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1982). The attributional style questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 287-299.

Radloff, L. S. (1975). Sex differences in depression: The effects of occupation and marital status. Sex Roles, 1, 249-265.

Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1965). Manual for the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.

predicting emotional concomitants of learned helplessness: the role of motivational orientation

Documents