Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ABSTRACT. Positive psychology is becoming established as a reputable sub-discipline in psychology despite having neglected the role of
positive reinforcement in enhancing quality of life. The authors discuss
the relevance of positive reinforcement for positive psychology, with
implications for broadening the content of organizational behavior management. Specifically, literature in achievement motivation is discussed,
and ways to promote success-seeking over failure-avoiding are entertained. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery
Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com>
Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc.
All rights reserved.]
Douglas M. Wiegand and E. Scott Geller are affiliated with the Department of Psychology, Center for Applied Behavior Systems, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA 24061 (E-mail: dwiegand@vt.edu).
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 24(1/2) 2005
Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JOBM
2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J075v24n01_02
This presentation addresses this predicament, and discusses achievement motivation as an example of how applied behavior analysis can be
used to promote a success-seeking orientation within organizations and
our educational system.
BROADENING THE CONTENT OF OBM
Recently, Geller (2002) discussed the importance of expanding the
content of OBM so as to attract more students, teachers, researchers,
and practitioners to the field. He stated that industrial-organizational
(I/O) psychologists have a promotional edge over OBM in that they
. . . draw on the broad range of sub-disciplines in psychology, from
physiological and cognitive to personality and social psychology, to
develop their theories, design their applications, and analyze and interpret empirical findings (p. 14).
Not only would broadening the content of OBM make the field more
marketable (Bailey, 1991; Lindsey, 1991), it would also gain attention
and credibility by forming a reciprocal relationship with other disciplines (including various sub-disciplines within psychology). Being unaware of the research of our counterparts in other disciplines may create
confusion and waste resources by reinventing the wheel.
One example of such an unfortunate journey in science is Malotts
(2002) What OBM Needs Is More Jewish Mothers, which addresses
the topic of achievement motivation. Malott wrote this article in response to Gellers (2002) expansion piece, which served as the inspiration for the present paper.
Enter the Jewish Mother and Negative Reinforcement
Malott (2002) uses the metaphor of a Jewish mother to explain why
he believes children reared using negative reinforcement are more successful than those reared using positive reinforcement. He states, a
highly successful person must be very self-critical; a highly successful
[person] must have heavy fear, guilt, and/or shame ( italics in original).
According to Malott, successful individuals acquire this sense of fear,
guilt, and/or shame early in life, and are highly motivated to avoid such
feelings (and the inevitable disappointment of their Jewish mother) by
working extremely hard and never being satisfied with their achievements. He claims that such negative person states are more effective
motivators than Gellers actively-caring states of self-esteem, self-ef-
Success Seeker
Overstriver
High
Failure Avoiding
Low
Failure Avoiding
Failure Acceptor
Failure Avoider
Low
Success Seeking
From Making the Grade: A Self-Worth Perspective on Motivation and School Reform, by M.V.
Covington, 1992, Cambridge University Press. Adapted with permission.
ceived as inferior in ability when compared to their peers or other standards. Self-worth theory expands on McClellands views and sheds
light on the issue of failure avoidance.
Self-Worth Theory
According to self-worth theory, the greatest concern for students is
the need for self-acceptance or protection of self-esteem (Beery, 1975;
Covington, 1984a, b, 1992, 1997; Covington & Beery, 1976; Covington &
Roberts, 1994). Failure holds implications for individuals self-esteem
because it is often perceived to be indicative of low ability, which is often considered the cornerstone of low self-esteem (Covington, 1984b,
1992). Therefore, students go to great lengths to protect their sense of
personal value, even if it means sacrificing good grades to do so. Two
strategies for protecting ones perception of ability have been examined
in the achievement literature, namely, self-handicapping and defensive
pessimism.
Self-handicapping (Berglas & Jones, 1978) refers to actively placing
barriers in the way of success (e.g., procrastination, reduction of effort,
taking on too much at once), so if failure were to occur, the individual
could blame these external impediments as opposed to personal attributes such as ability or competency. These individuals find external
causes of failure less threatening because they do not have implications
for their self-worth. For example, people who go to a party and stay out
late the night before taking a test may be self-handicapping. Such behavior (going to a party instead of resting and studying) would most
likely compromise performance on a test, giving these individuals a
readily available excuse for earning a poor grade.
Defensive pessimism (Norem & Cantor, 1986a, b) refers to setting
unjustifiably low expectations of performance and considering a variety
of potential outcomes in which one can be evaluated. By having unfounded low expectations, an individual is bracing for the worst possible outcome. Then, by comparison, the actual outcome will seem better
than expected (Norem & Cantor, 1986a, b). This technique is self-protective in that people set safer standards against which their ability
will be judged, thereby lowering the bar for acceptable performance
(Baumgardner & Brownlee, 1987).
As an example of defensive pessimism, consider a reasonably good
student telling herself she is going to fail a test. She is convinced failure
is inevitable, and thinks of a variety of ways the situation will play itself
out (e.g., thinking she will not remember anything she studied, thinking
10
the questions will be too difficult for her to understand, and/or thinking
she will not have enough time to finish the test). Then, taking the test
and earning a grade of C will be considered satisfactory, since it is
much better than the expected grade of F. Defensive pessimism may
work to alleviate some anxiety, however, research has shown that in the
long run, such a negative outlook can minimize potential feelings of
success, and will ultimately lead to poorer outcomes (Norem & Cantor,
1990).
Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism are ultimately self-defeating in that they often influence the negative outcomes a person is
trying to avoid (Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001a). By attributing poor
outcomes to either external (or situational) circumstances or by comparing ones performance to an even lower expectation, individuals protect
their self-worth by distancing failure from their perceptions of personal
competence. It is important to note that these techniques are not aimed
at increasing personal ability, but instead protecting peoples perception of their competence as is. Self-worth theory therefore proposes an
alternative view of motivation to Whites (1959) competence theory.
White (1959) described the desire for competence as a primary
source of human motivation. He posited that this desire is self-initiating
and self-rewarding, and the behaviors related to a sense of competence
are highly focused activities that are intrinsically reinforcing. It is important to realize that in the quest for competence, some form of failure
is inevitable as experience is gained at whatever task is being mastered.
It is part of the learning process.
Conversely, self-worth theory states that protecting ones self-esteem is more motivating to some individuals than gaining competence.
These individuals are unwilling to risk their sense of self-worth, even to
learn new skills or to improve deficient ones.
Research shows that individual differences in motivation exist, lending support to both self-worth theory and competence theory (e.g.,
Covington & Omelich, 1991). Recognizing these differences has lead to
the identification of distinct achievement typologies, described as
follows.
Achievement Typologies
Based on the quadripolar model of need achievement and self-worth
theory, Covington and Omelich (1991) identified four distinct achievement typologies. These typologies have been the focus of recent literature attempting to explain differences in how people approach success
11
and/or avoid failure. The four typologies describe individuals who are:
(1) success seekers, (2) overstrivers, (3) failure avoiders, or (4) failure
acceptors. Again, while a majority of this research was conducted using
academic samples, it is clearly adaptable to organizations.
Success Seekers. Success seekers (SS) have been referred to as the
resilient typology (e.g., Martin, 2002a), because they seem to be exempt from the self-protective tendencies described by the self-worth
perspective. They also respond to setbacks (e.g., negative feedback) in a
proactive and adaptive manner, persisting with optimism and energy
(Covington & Omelich, 1991; Martin, 1998; Martin et al., 2001a). In
terms of Atkinsons model, these individuals show high expectancy for
success and low fear of failure.
These individuals display exemplary achievement behaviors
(Covington & Omelich, 1991, p. 86) in that they are self-confident and
willing to take risks, as opposed to being avoidant due to a fear of failure. Research has shown that SS individuals succeed by focusing on
success instead of failure (Covington & Omelich, 1991; Martin, 1998;
Martin et al., 2001a). Martin (2002b) found that those classified as SS
reported high self-efficacy, high personal control, and low fear of failure. As students, they tend to exhibit the highest quality study skills and
habits (Covington & Omelich, 1991).
Covington and Roberts (1994) surveyed 220 undergraduates to investigate personality variables related to achievement typology. Results
from the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1987) indicate that SS individuals tend to be healthy and psychologically well-adjusted. They score above average on norm adherence, extraversion,
conscientiousness, and tolerance. They also tend to be concerned with
the impression they make on others, and describe themselves as
sensitive to the needs of others.
Overstrivers. Individuals classified as overstrivers (OS) avoid failure
by working in excess to succeed (Covington & Omelich, 1991; Martin &
Marsh, 2003; Martin et al., 2001a). They fit into the quadrant of
Atkinsons model that reflects both high expectancy for success and
high fear of failure. These people are diligent, academically successful,
meticulous, and at times optimistic. However, they maintain a level of
self-doubt about their abilities and experience high levels of evaluation
anxiety, driving them to avoid failure by succeeding (Covington, 1992;
Covington & Omelich, 1991; Martin et al., 2001a). Their dual tendency
to contemplate potential success and failure leads these individuals to
failure avoidance because they are particularly vulnerable to threats to
their perceived competence (Covington, 1992, as cited in Martin et al.,
12
13
typologies, these students show the lowest levels of academic achievement (Martin, 2002b). They avoid challenges, and are debilitated by a
setback because it confirms their doubts about their lack of competence,
personal control, and/or self-efficacy (Covington & Omelich, 1991; Martin, 1998; Martin et al., 2001a). Martin (2002b) described these individuals as avoidant, anxious, and pessimistic, and having low self-belief and
low perceptions of control.
Failure avoiders tend to be unsure of themselves, and are described as
being preoccupied with worries about the future, including their physical
and mental health (Covington & Roberts, 1994). They have difficulty finishing what they begin, dislike direct competition, and generally have low
compliance with others wishes or opinions. Finally, they score low on
psychological mindedness, meaning they focus more on behaviors than
feelings (Covington & Roberts, 1994).
Failure Acceptors. The final typology represented by Atkinsons
model describes individuals low in both expectancy for success and fear
of failure. Covington and Omelich (1985) label these individuals failure
acceptors (FAC). These individuals have been described as being former FAVs who decided their excuses were no longer plausible, and accepted their failures as implications of low ability (e.g., Covington &
Omelich, 1991; Martin & Marsh, 2003).
Failure acceptors withdraw from academic competition, and are generally typified by indifference (Covington & Omelich, 1991). They display
a pattern of motivation analogous to learned helplessness (Abramson et
al., 1978; Covington, 1992; Maier & Seligman, 1976), embracing the belief that no matter how hard they try they will inevitably fail (Coyne &
Lazarus, 1980; Miller & Norman, 1979). Martin (1998, 2002b) found
these individuals report school as a low priority and noted that they lack
both academic motivation and resilience (Martin, 2002a).
While their competence estimates fall between the SS and FAV, they
are not worried about their ability (Covington & Omelich, 1991). In
terms of self-protective behaviors, some have considered these individuals to be the epitome of self-handicappers in that they do not try at all
(Martin et al., 2001a). However, when faced with failure, they are the
least likely to blame outside or situational factors for their failure. They
take personal credit for their failure (Covington & Omelich, 1991).
When examining FAC individuals scores on the CPI, Covington and
Roberts (1994) found interesting and unexpected results. These individuals, typically described as unmotivated and indifferent, are actually
more psychologically adjusted than the two failure-avoiding groups.
They score high on well-being, tolerance, self-control, and social pres-
14
ence. They report being self-assured and self-disciplined, and experience a passive lifestyle relatively free of worry. These individuals can
be described as creative, eccentric, individualistic, and unconventional
(Covington & Roberts, 1994).
It is possible the achievement measures do not tap the constructs necessary to describe the FAC person. As Martin (1998) found, school is
not particularly important to failure acceptors, which reflects negatively
on them when they complete the achievement measures. He believes
they might render more positive, achievement-related characteristics if
their assessment referenced tasks other than academics.
Given the research summarized above, it is clear the SS individuals
are motivated by positive reinforcement, while the OS and FAV individuals are driven by negative reinforcement. The principles of OBM
could be applied to help these failure-avoiding individuals reach the
ideal of a success-seeking orientation, mainly by arranging environmental contingencies in terms of positive versus negative reinforcement. Restructuring the environment to make positive reinforcement
the salient contingency may increase positive person states (e.g., the
psychological well-being and conscientiousness qualities of the SO
individuals) as well as increase productivity.
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
AND ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION
Personality Traits vs. Personality States
Pertinent to this discussion is whether person-based variables can be
influenced. A personality trait is thought to be stable and persistent over
time and therefore difficult to influence. This is the stance typically taken
by I/O psychologists who study personality factors as determinants of behavior.
Conversely, other researchers and scholars (including those in OBM)
view personality factors as fluctuating states under the influence of the
environment and the three-term contingency. In this case, person states
are examined as dependent variables. With this view, research is conducted to increase positive person states through environmental conditions and contingencies, which then affect a persons motivation
orientation.
A major focus of OBM is to create environments in which productivity
and quality are high and workers are generally satisfied, happy, healthy,
15
and safe. Thus, it can be deduced that OBM aims to promote a successseeking orientation. As described above, success seekers are generally
well-adjusted, work towards being the best they can be, and experience high
self-worth or self-efficacy, perceptions of personal control, and low fear of
failure (Covington & Omelich, 1991; Covington & Roberts, 1994; Martin,
1998, 2002b; Martin et al., 2001a). As college students, they exhibit the
highest quality study skills, and obtain relatively high grades. It seems
these are the ideal person states to cultivate when creating effective academic or organizational climates.
PROMOTING A SUCCESS-SEEKING ORIENTATION
Numerous scholarly works have addressed ways to enhance motivation by creating success-focused environments (e.g., Covington, 1992;
Covington & Roberts, 1994; Martin, 2001; Martin & Marsh, 2003).
While a comprehensive review of this literature is beyond the scope of
this presentation, one recent set of recommendations is discussed which
emphasizes the importance of increasing positive person states and decreasing negative person states when shaping ones achievement motivation. By gaining awareness of the scholarship that has been produced
by change agents in education and other disciplines, the field of OBM
can begin to make its own contributions, from filling gaps in the research to developing new approaches to develop success-seeking
motivation.
Martins achievement model (2001, 2002a, in press) categorizes cognitive and behavioral determinants of motivation as boosters, guzzlers,
or mufflers. Boosters are those factors that enhance motivation, including self-efficacy, school appreciation, a learning-focused mindset, goal
persistence, planning, and self-monitoring. In contrast, guzzlers reduce
motivation, including low personal control and self-protection (i.e.,
self-handicapping and defensive pessimism). Finally, mufflers have the
potential of limiting motivation, yet are not as debilitating as guzzlers.
Examples of mufflers are anxiety and failure avoidance.
Martin and his colleagues have described techniques for increasing
boosters and decreasing guzzlers and mufflers in academic settings
(Martin, 2001, 2002a, 2002b, in press; Martin & Marsh, 2003; Martin et
al., 2001b). These techniques are summarized below as supported by research conducted in applied behavior analysis and OBM.
Self-Efficacy. Martin and Marsh (2003) describe self-efficacy (a.k.a.,
self-belief) as students confidence they will understand and succeed in
16
what they plan to do, while performing to the best of their ability. Self-efficacy is one of the strongest predictors of achievement (Bandura, 1986,
1997; Marsh, 1990; Martin & Debus, 1998). Thus, it is a crucial booster
to increase among students and workers alike.
Perceptions of self-efficacy can be increased using techniques developed by Watson and Tharp (1997). One method is to choose a task the
person can complete successfully. This may involve breaking a job assignment into smaller, more manageable components (McInerney,
2000). By increasing the opportunities to experience success or small
wins (Weick, 1984), self-efficacy will increase. Also, individuals
should set goals within their knowledge and capability range, and their
view of success should focus on personal bests and improvement as opposed to competing against others (Covington, 1992; Martin, 2002a).
One way to accomplish this is to create a hierarchy of things one would
like to accomplish, ranging from easiest to most difficult. Once easier
tasks have been accomplished, self-efficacy can build successively to
help one conquer more difficult tasks.
School Appreciation. This refers to students belief that what they
learn in school is important and practical to them and society in general
(Martin, 2001). This is comparable to Banduras notions of response efficacy (1997) and outcome expectancy (1986). Response efficacy refers to
the belief that certain behaviors will produce a desired outcome (e.g., If I
study hard, I will succeed). Outcome expectancy refers to the results (or
consequences) people anticipate from engaging in certain behaviors, and
whether or not these outcomes are perceived as worth the effort (e.g.,
Succeeding in school is important, and it will make my life better). In
this case, these terms pertain to the belief that doing well in school is relevant to future success and worth the effort. This notion is also comparable
to having workers buy in to their job assignment or a behavior management program to increase their competence or motivation.
To increase school appreciation, educators need to link what they are
teaching to students personal lives (including their interests and talents), the real world (including current events and job experiences),
and to other subjects taught in school (Martin, 2001, 2002a; Martin &
Marsh, 2003). In other words, the question Why do I need to know
this? should be addressed specifically and in many ways. This relates
directly to organizational issues regarding workers perceptions of their
job competence and performance outcomes.
School appreciation can also be increased if students understand they
are not only learning what is being taught directly, but are also enhancing important problem-solving skills and such virtues as patience, per-
17
18
19
Optimism
I expect the best
Empowerment
I can make a difference
1
2
4
Self-Esteem
Im valuable
Belonging
I belong to a team
From The Psychology of Safety Handbook (p. 330), by E. S. Geller, 2001, Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press. Adapted with permission.
20
21
22
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.
Aronson, E. (1999). The power of self-persuasion. American Psychologist, 54,
875-884.
Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom: Building cooperation in the
classroom. New York: Longman.
Aronson, E., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., Blaney, N., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359-372.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Bailey, J. S. (1991). Marketing behavior analysis requires different talk. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 37-40.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman & Co.
Baumgardner, A. H., & Brownlee, E. A. (1987). Strategic failure in social interaction:
Evidence for expectancy disconfirmation processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 525-535.
Beery, R. G. (1975). Fear of failure in the student experience. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 54, 190-203.
Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36,
405-417.
Cantania, A. C. (2001). Positive psychology and positive reinforcement. American
Psychologist, 56, 86-87.
Covington, M. V. (1984a). Motivated cognitions. In S. G. Paris, G. M. Olson, & H. W.
Stevenson (Eds.), Learning and motivation in the classroom (pp. 139-164). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Covington, M. V. (1984b). The motive for self-worth. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.),
Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1, pp. 77-113). New York: Academic
Press.
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation
and school reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Covington, M. V. (1997). A motivational analysis of academic life in college. In R. P.
Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and
practice. New York: Agathon Press. Republished from Covington, M. V. (1993). A
motivational analysis of academic life in college. Higher education: Handbook of
theory and research. New York: Agathon Press.
Covington, M. V., & Beery, R. G. (1976). Self-worth and school learning. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1979). Are causal attributions causal? A path
analysis of the cognitive model of achievement motivation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37, 1487-1504.
23
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1985). Ability and effort valuation among failure-avoiding and failure-accepting students. Journal of Educational Psychology,
77, 446-459.
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1988). Achievement dynamics: The interaction
of motives, cognitions and emotions over time. Anxiety Journal, 1, 165-183.
Covington, M. W., & Omelich, C. L. (1991). Need achievement revisited: Verification
of Atkinsons original 2 2 model. In C. D. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason, Z. Kulcsar,
& G. L. Van Heck (Eds.), Stress and emotion, Vol. 14. New York, NY: Hemisphere.
Covington, M. V., & Roberts, B. W. (1994). Self-worth and college achievement: Motivational and personality correlates. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E.
Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation, cognition, and learning: Essays in honor of
Wilbert J. McKeachie. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coyne, J. C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). Cognitive style, stress perception, and coping. In
I. L. Kutash & L. B. Schlesinger (Eds.), Handbook on stress and anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (1991). Effects of internally focused feedback and attributional feedback on the enhancement of academic self-concept.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 17-26.
Daniels, A. C. (2000). Bringing out the best in people: How to apply the astonishing
power of positive reinforcement. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Follette, W. C., Linnerooth, P. J. N., & Ruckstuhl, L. E. Jr. (2001). Positive psychology: A clinical behavior analytic perspective. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,
41, 102-134.
Geller, E. S. (1991). If only more would actively care. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 24, 607-612.
Geller, E. S. (1995). Integrating behaviorism and humanism for environmental protection. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 179-195.
Geller, E. S. (2001a). Actively caring for occupational safety: Extending the performance
management paradigm. In C. M. Johnson, W. K. Redmon, & T. C. Mawhinney (Eds.),
Handbook of organizational performance: Behavior analysis and management
(pp. 303-326). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.
Geller, E. S. (2001b). The challenge of increasing proenvironmental behavior. In
R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology
(pp. 525-540). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Geller, E. S. (2001c). The psychology of safety handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Geller, E. S. (2001d). Working safe: How to help people actively care for health and
safety (Second Edition). Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.
Geller, E. S. (2002). Should organizational behavior management expand its content?
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(2), 13-30.
Geller, E. S. (2002). Organizational behavior management and industrial/organizational psychology: Achieving synergy by valuing differences. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(2), 111-130.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Gough, H. G. (1987). Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 55, 174-180.
24
Lindsey, O. R. (1991). From technical jargon to plain English for application. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 41-50.
Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence.
Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 105, 3-46.
Malott, R. W. (2002). What OBM needs is more Jewish mothers. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(2), 71-87.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77-172.
Martin, A. J. (1998). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: Predictors and consequences from a self-worth motivation perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Western Sydney, Macarthur. As cited in Martin, A. J. (2002).
The lethal cocktail: Low self-belief, low control, and high fear of failure. Australian
Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 12, 74-85.
Martin, A. J. (2001). The Student Motivation Scale: A tool for measuring and enhancing motivation. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 11, 1-20.
Martin, A. J. (2002a). Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model of student enhancement. Australian Journal of Education. 14, 34-49.
Martin, A. J. (2002b). The lethal cocktail: Low self-belief, low control, and high fear of
failure. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 12, 74-85.
Martin, A. J. (in press). The Student Motivation Scale: Further testing of an instrument
that measures school students motivation. Australian Journal of Education.
Martin, A. J., & Debus, R. L. (1998). Self-reports of mathematics self-concept and educational outcomes: The roles of ego-dimensions and self-consciousness. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 517-535.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe? Australian Psychologist, 38, 31-38.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001a). A quadripolar need achievement
representation of self-handicapping and defensive pessimism. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 583-610.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001b). Self-handicapping and defensive
pessimism: Exploring a model of predictors and outcomes from a self-protection
perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 87-102.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Self-handicapping and defensive
pessimism: A model of self-protection from a longitudinal perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 1-36.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a theory of motive acquisition. American Psychologist, 20, 321-333.
McInerney, D. (2000). Helping kids achieve their best. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability:
An unexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89,
710-718.
Miller, I. W., III, & Norman, W. H. (1979). Learned helplessness in humans: A review
and attribution-theory model. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 93-118.
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
25
Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986a). Anticipating and post hoc cushioning strategies:
Optimism and defensive pessimism in risky situations. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 10, 347-362.
Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986b). Defensive pessimism: Harnessing anxiety as motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1208-1217.
Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1990). Cognitive strategies, coping and perceptions of
competence. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian Jr. (Eds.), Competence considered
(pp. 190-204). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65, 129-144.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden two. New York: Macmillan.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of positive psychology. London: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, T. (1994). Self-worth protection: Review and implications for the classroom. Educational Review, 46, 259-274.
Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Watson, D. C., & Tharp, R. G. (1997). Self-directed behavior: Self-modification for
personal adjustment (7th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Weick, K. E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American
Psychologist, 39, 40-49.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.