Academically contingent self-worth and vulnerability: When approach self-validation goals are more threatening than avoidance self-validation goals

Abstract

When are people who base their self-worth on academic competence vulnerable to negative outcomes such as anxiety and underperformance? One answer, according to decades of achievement goal research, seems obvious: when they aim to avoid demonstrating inability (called avoidance self-validation goals). Less clear is whether such vulnerability also exists when aiming to demonstrate ability (approach self-validation goals). Surprisingly, two studies found no evidence of vulnerability among participants who base self-worth on academics when avoidance self-validation goals were salient. Instead, it was when approach self-validation goals were salient that participants’ academically contingent self-worth most reliably predicted vulnerability. These results suggest that, within domains of contingency, people worry more about self-enhancement afforded by approach self-validation goals than about self-protection afforded by avoidance self-validation goals.

Keywords:

• Contingencies of self-worth
• self-validation goals
• approach goals
• avoidance goals
• anxiety
• achievement motivation
• math performance

Notes

1. Given that we shortened the test in study 2 (from 25 to 23 problems), we reran the analyses in Study 1 but with a shortened version of the test (now 23 problems to match that of Study 2). These analyses yielded the same results as we found in Study 1. There was a statistically significant ACSW x Goal salience interaction, β = −.24, p = .004, sr² = .055. Simple slope analyses, probing the interaction, reveal that in the approach self-validation goals condition, that the more participants based their self-worth on academic competence, the fewer questions they answered correctly (β = −.34, p = .006, sr² = .051). In the avoidance self-validation goals condition, participants’ level of ACSW was not statistically related to number correct (β = .12, p = .279, sr² = .008). Neither the ACSW nor the goal salience main effects reached statistical significance, ps > .09, sr² < .018.