Running head: EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 1
The Disheartening Effects of Enhancing Self-efficacy Through Verbal Persuasion in a Failure Context
Brenda M. van de Leemkolk University of Amsterdam
Master Thesis „Psychologie van gezondheidsgedrag‟ Student number: 10640258
Supervisors: Dr. Yaël de Liver & Dr. Bastiaan Rutjens Second assessor: Dr. M.L.W. Vliek
Program group: Social Psychology Date: 15th July 2014
Contents
Abstract………...4
Introduction……….5
Self-efficacy………...5
Sources of self-efficacy………..6
Verbal persuasion: „You can do it!‟………...7
Feedback and failure………..9
Research questions and hypotheses……….10 Method………..12
Design and participants………12
Materials………..13
Procedure……….15
Results………...17
Factor analysis of the affect items………17
Preliminary analyses………18
Self-efficacy……….19
Affect………...20
Handgrip performance……….21 Motivation and effort………...22
Exploratory analyses: Persistence………23
Exploratory analysis: Self-efficacy and negative affect………..24
Discussion……….24
Alternative explanations………..25 Limitations and future directions……….26 Concluding remarks……….28
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 3 References……….30 Tables………36 Table 1………..36 Table 2………..37 Table 3………..38 Table 4………..40 Table 5………..41 Table 6………..42 Table 7………..43 Table 8………..44 Appendices………45 Appendix A………..45 Appendix B………..46 Appendix C………..47 Appendix D………..49 Appendix E………..52 Appendix F………..53 Appendix G………..54 Appendix H………..56 Appendix I………58
Abstract
Self-efficacy is a widely used concept within health behavior research. It has found to be related to adherence, persistence, motivation.. Self-efficacy beliefs can be formed by verbal persuasions. To date, no research has examined the effects of verbal persuasions in a failure context. The goal of the present study is to examine the possible negative effects of enhancing self-efficacy through verbal persuasion in a failure context. Our first expectation was that verbal persuasion (versus no persuasion) would lead to a larger decrease in self-efficacy beliefs when followed by a failure message. Secondly, we expected that it would lead to more negative affect (feelings of shame) and that this relationship would be moderated by self-esteem. We also expected that verbal persuasion would lead to higher self-efficacy beliefs, more motivation and better performance. Furthermore, exploratory analyses were included to examine the effects of verbal persuasion on persistence. Verbal persuasion was manipulated by showing participants a self-efficacy message on a computer screen. Results failed to support these hypotheses. However, interesting significant correlations were found between decrease in self-efficacy and more negative affect. These findings suggest that feedback is important when the individual is faced with failure. The study has a few methodological implications. Suggestions for future research are discussed.
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 5 The disheartening effects of enhancing self-efficacy
through verbal persuasion in a failure context
Being healthy and living a long and happy life are presumably important aims for almost everyone. Healthy lifestyle choices can help to enhance general wellbeing, achieve and maintain a healthy weight, and reduce the risk of a number of diseases (Khaw, Wareham, Bingham, Welch, Luben, & Day, 2008; Sprange et al., 2013). However, changing and
maintaining one‟s lifestyle for the better seems to be difficult (King, Mainous III, Carnemolla, & Everett, 2009; Middleton, Anton, & Perri, 2013).
Several psychological models of behaviour have been developed to understand and predict the occurrence of health-related behaviours, behaviour change and the maintenance of change (i.e. the Health Belief Model, Protection Motivation Theory, and the Theory of
Planned Behavior). These theories help with the development of effective interventions to change behaviour and guide health behavior research. A widely used concept within many health behaviour research is self-efficacy. It is increasingly receiving recognition as a predictor of health behaviour change and maintenance (Stroebe, 2011). For example, self-efficacy has been found to be related to adherence to treatment recommendations and lifestyle change in patients with diabetes (Mishali, Omer, & Heymann, 2011) and rheumatoid arthiritis (Brus, Van de Laar, Taal, Rasker, & Wiegman, 1999). It has also been found to be related to patients following predictive screening recommendations (Friedman, Webb, Bruce,
Weinberg, & Cooper, 1995) and to adopting and maintaining exercise regimens (Rhodes, Plotnikoff, & Courneya, 2008; Williams et al., 2008).
Self-efficacy
The concept of self-efficacy was introduced by Albert Bandura as part of Social Cognitive Theory (SCT; 1977, 1982). According to this theory, human behaviour is not only affected by an individual‟s motivation, cognitive processes and affective states, but also by
their environment. People employ their beliefs and knowledge in order to interpret situations and events, which in turn leads to the development of expectations that play an important role in determining their future behaviour. Self-efficacy is a key element of SCT and can be defined as a person‟s perception that (s)he can effectively exert control over his or her
motivation, behaviour and social environment (Bandura, 1990). The essence of this construct lies in its ability to predict behaviour. Self-efficacy has found to be one of the most powerful motivational predictors of how well a person will perform (Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995). For example, self-efficacy has found to be positively correlated to work-related performance (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998) and performance in sport (Moritz, Feltz, & Fahrbach, 2000). A high sense of self-efficacy prompts individuals to expend high levels of effort in activities they undertake and to persevere in the face of obstacles. More than that, perceived self-efficacy affects thinking and other cognitive processes; individuals with a high sense of self-efficacy devote their attention and cognitive abilities to master problems, while individuals with a limited sense of self-efficacy ruminate about the things that could go wrong (Bandura, 1986; 1977).
In other words, self-efficacy determines effort, persistence, and strategy selection in the accomplishment of tasks ( Bandura, 1977; Maddux and Lewis, 1995). Self-efficacy has an impressive impact on our lives, as it influences the choices that we make. Thus, enhancing it seems to be of great importance in achieving behaviour change and maintenance.
Sources of self-efficacy
Bandura (1977) suggests that individuals form their self-efficacy perceptions by interpreting information from four sources: mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal (social) persuasions, and physiological states (McAlister, Perry, & Parcel, 2008).
Mastery experience is considered to be the most potent efficacy-enhancing strategy. It involves interpretating one‟s personal experience and performance. Self-efficacy beliefs can
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 7 be enhanced when success is attributed internally and can be repeated. For example, a good performance on a math exam will positively influence the perceptions of one‟s ability in math.
The second source is vicarious experience and involves observing a model (someone similar to the individual) who successfully masters a situation. This is also known as modelling, where the individual visualises others who have similar attributes as the
individual. If the observed model succeeds, self-efficacy in the form of vicarious experience is aquired. Students observing a model who successfully performs in a threatening situation are more likely to develop an expectation that they can acquire the same skill (Alderman, 1999).
Third, self-efficacy can be enhanced through verbal persuasions by others. Positive persuasions may work to encourage and empower the individual, while negative persuasions can work to defeat and weaken self-beliefs (Bandura, 1986). If verbal and social persuasive efforts are unrealistic, this can lead to an over inflated perception of self-efficacy, and result in dissapointment which effectively undermines the person‟s self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Physiological or emotional states of the individual serve as a further means from people partly judge their capabilities. Situations which are interpreted by the individual as stressful or demanding can debilitate performance and actually produce the results that the individual fears. Notably, it is possible that individuals exaggerate or misinterpret these feelings,
depending on predominantly negative previous experiences. Physical sympotoms like anxiety, nervousness, a rapid heart beat, and sweating can lower one‟s perception of self-efficacy and thus affect their performance (Bandura, 1997).
Verbal persuasion: “You can do it!”
Of these sources, mastery experience, or the interpreting the result of one‟s own performance, is believed to be the most influential source. As Bandura (1994, p.71) stated:
“While successes build a robust belief in one‟s personal efficacy, failures may undermine it. In particular if failures occur before a sense of efficacy is firmly established.
Besides mastery experience, verbal (or social) persuasion is another widely used
technique, because of its ease and ready availability (Bandura, 1997). Verbal persuasion refers to telling people that they posses the capabilities that would enable them to achieve what they want (“You can do it!”). By persuading people to believe in themselves, they supposedly will exert more effort, which in turn can lead to more success (Bandura, 1997).
Several studies on verbal encouragement showed that verbal encouragement leads to better physical performance (Bickers et al., 1993; Guyatt et al., 1984; Anderacci et al., 2002; Mayfield et al., 2012). Perry et al. (2004) found that verbal encouragement by food-service staff was associated with more fruit- and vegetable consumption in children. Verbal
persuasion itself is believed to play a meaningful role in coaching, when the coach has an impact on the individual‟s efficacy perceptions. Vargas-Tonsing, Myers and Feltz (2004) found that both coaches and athletes consider this technique to be a highly effective and that it was seen as an highly used coaching tool for increasing efficacy. Interventions that target health behaviours could benefit from including verbal persuasion to enhance self-efficacy, because self-efficacy is assumed to lead to better performances, and thus to more success.
Verbal persuasion may be limited in creating long-lasting increases in self-efficacy, but can contribute to successful performance if the desired appraisal is within realistic bounds (Bandura 1986; Bandura, 1997). One must be careful not to provide false hope that will invite failure, for this will undermine perceived self-efficacy. Bandura (1986) identifies verbal persuasion as the source that can most easily have such a deleterious effect.
In addition, Bandura (1986, as cited by Lamarche et al., 2014) believes that persuasory efficacy attributions have the greatest impact on persons who have “some reason to believe they can produce effects through their actions” (p. 400). This suggests that a minimum of
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 9 perceived self-efficacy needs to be present for verbal persuasion to be effective. It is also suggested that the effectiveness of verbal persuasion as a source for self-efficacy beliefs is influenced by factors like expertness, trustworthiness, and attractiveness of the source (Bandura, 1997; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Maddux & Gosselin, 2003). Because the outcomes described in verbal persuasion are not directly witnessed, its successfulness mainly depends on the credibility of the persuader (Zimmerman, 2000).
Although previous studies have demonstrated that verbal persuasion can have a positive effect on performance, little is known about the effects it has on self-efficacy. In order to obtain the desired effect on self-efficacy, it is thought that verbal persuasion should be followed by success. This raises the question of what happens if one faces failure after verbal persuasion. When the person does not have a firmly established sense of self-efficacy, the effects could backfire. Not only will failure discredit the persuador, it will also undermine the recipients beliefs about their capabilities. What happens when verbal persuasion is followed by failure has yet to be studied. In the present study we sought to assess whether enhancing self-efficacy beliefs through verbal persuasion could have negative effects in a failure context. Feedback and failure
Although the effects of verbal persuasion followed by failure have yet to be studied, many studies examined the effects of feedback in the domain of education (a.o. Brummelman et al., 2013; Foote, 1999; Schunk, 1983). Past research tends to focus solely on the effects of feedback after the individual succeeded or failed, and how the individuals fared when faced with setbacks after praise feedback experiences. In most research a distinction was made between praising the ability of an individual and praising their effort.
The difference between ability and effort can be explained in the view of attribution theories, which suggest that there are three causal properties; locus, stability, and
to the duration of a cause (i.e. stable or unstable), and controllability refers to the willfully changeability of the cause (i.e. controllable or uncontrollable) (Weiner 1985: 2001). Within this framework, ability is seen as an internal, stable and more uncontrollable factor, while effort is seen as an internal, unstable and more controllable factor. Undergraduate students who were led to attribute poor performance to ability expected less improvement and less future success than students who were led to attribute poor performance to ineffective strategies (i.e. effort) (Anderson & Jennings, 1980; Clifford, 1986a, b). In addition, students who felt that their ability level had been negatively evaluated were more likely to show lower expectations of future success and more negative affect (Anderson & Jennings, 1980; Kamins & Dweck, 1999). Because self-efficacy messages in verbal persuasion are aimed at the ability of a person, it seems to suggest an internal, stable and controlable attribution of the
performance. Not only do these messages target the ability of a person, they are also explicity directed at the individual.
A recent study by Brummelman et al. (2013) found that praising a child‟s ability (person praise) versus praising a child‟s effort (process praise) caused more feelings of shame after failure, especially among children with low self-esteem. It is suggested that praising the ability of children with low self-esteem may make them highly self-focused, which leads to negative self-attributions. Individuals low in self-esteem seem to lack the ability to withstand the experience of failure or negative information (Battle, 1990). Research by Brown and Weiner (1984), and Weiner (1985) suggests that a lack of ability as the perceived cause of failure elicits shame, whereas failure ascribed to insufficient effort produces guilt. Thus, the negative feelings after failure ascribed to a lack of ability, might be especially prominent in individuals with low self-esteem.
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 11 Bandura‟s theory proposes that self-efficacy can be enhanced through verbal persuasion when followed by success. Due to the resemblance between verbal persuasion and statements about one‟s ability, it would be interesting to examine the effects of verbal persuasion when one is faced with failure. Because verbal persuasion is directed at an individual, it presumably leads to an increased focus on the self. Moreover, verbal persuasion is directed toward the ability of a person and seems to suggest an internal, stable attribution regarding the cause of failure. Therefore, it is possible that it can have detrimental effects when failure subsequently follows. One question motivating this study is if verbal persuasion has detrimental effects when followed by failure. Does verbal persuasion lead to even lower levels of self-efficacy when followed by failure? Does it leads to negative feelings when followed by failure? And is this effect primarly found in individuals with low self-esteem?
Answering these questions can provide insight in this source of self-efficacy. It might lead to improvements in the practical application of self-efficacy enhancement through verbal persuasion, so individuals do not get disheartened. Self-efficacy is an important construct in many health behaviours interventions and verbal persuasion is a widely used technique in coaching.
The present study examined the effects of verbal persuasion followed by failure. Based on the research discussed earlier, enhancing self-efficacy through verbal persuasion can backfire when it is followed by failure. Initially, we expected that verbal persuasion (versus control) would lead to more self-efficacy. However, after failure experience, it was
hypothesised that individuals in the verbal persuasion condition would show a decrease in self-efficacy. To test this idea, we conducted an experiment in which half of the participants received verbal persuasion (and half of the participants did not), before a failure message. We measured their self-efficacy believes before and after the verbal persuasion message, and after the failure message.
Secondly, it was also expected that individuals in the verbal persuasion condition would show more negative affect (shame) after failure than individuals in the control condition, and that this effect would be moderated by self-esteem.
Thirdly, we examined whether verbal persuasion (versus control) would lead to better performance, and more motivation and effort. These variables were measured prior to the failure message. Converging evidence suggests that verbal persuasion can have positive effects on these variables. Besides, examining these variables can gives us more insight into the effectiveness of the verbal persuasion message.
Furthermore, an exploratory analysis examined if there was a difference in persistence between the conditions (verbal persuasion versus control). Persistence was measured by a choice-preference question, the handgrip time 3, and a single item asking about the extent to which the individuals would like to do the handgrip task again. Finally, we also examined the relationship between differences in self-efficacy scores and negative affect.
Method Design and participants
A total of 70 students (47 women and 23 men) from the University of Amsterdam (UvA) participated in this study. They were assigned to one of two conditions of a 2 (condition: verbal persuasion versus control) x 3 (measurement: T1, T2 and T3) mixed design. The age of the participants varied between 18 to 28 (Mage = 21.97, SD = 2.69). They
were recruited at the UVA by means of flyers distributed in the study rooms and cafeterias, and via the online researchtool of TOP Lab uva. The participants were compensated with 5 euros or 0.5 research credits for their voluntary participation. Due to practical implications, the participants were tested in different locations. About half of the participants were tested in private cubicles, and half of the participant in larger rooms.
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 13 Using Inquisit 4 [Computer software], the online survey was developed. The
participants completed the questionnaires and received the messages on the computer. Self-efficacy (T1) and affect (1) were measured after the baseline handgrip task. After the second handgrip task, self-efficacy (T2) and motivation were measured. Then self-efficacy (T3) and affect (2) were measured after the failure feedback. At the end, participants answered
questions about persistence, performed the third handgrip task (to measure persistence), and answered a number of final questions.
Materials
General self-esteem was measured using a Dutch version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Franck, De Raedt, Barbez, & Rosseel, 2008). This is a widely used scale and has found to be appropriate for participants between 15 and 82 years. It consists of 10 items asking participants to indicate their agreement on 4-point scals ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Example items are “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself” and “I certainly feel useless at times” (see Appendix A). The total score ranges from 0 to 30, with higher score indicating more self-esteem. After recoding the answers, a mean value of 21.36 (SD = 4.74) was obtained. The RSES has a reported Cronbach alpha of .86 and has good convergent and divergent validity (Franck et al., 2008). In the current study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient was .89.
Self-efficacy was measured by a self-efficacy scale that was developed according to Bandura‟s guide for constructing self-efficacy scales (2006). It consisted of four items that were answered at a 100-point scale, that ranged from 1 (cannot do at all) to 100 (highly certain can do) (see Appendix B). It had a good internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .87 at T1, .94 at T2, and .90 at T3.
A handgrip was used to measure handgrip stamina, and to examine the performance and persistence of the participants. The partcicipants needed to squeeze the handgrip three times, for baseline, performance and persistence measures.
Affect was measured by a scale that consisted of a selection of PANAS items (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The PANAS items were back-to-back translated to Dutch, and one item was added (“Clumsy”) as an additional and potentially relevant item related to self-efficacy. The participants indicated how they felt, using a 7-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 6 (extremely). Negative affect (NA) items (i.e. “Ashamed”, “Guilty”) were interspersed with positive affect (PA) items (i.e. “Excited”, “Interested”) (see Appendix C). Reported reliabilities of the PANAS scales, as measured by Chronbach‟s alpha, were .89 for the PA schale and .85 for the NA scale (Crawford & Henry, 2004). In the current study, for negative affect a Chronbach alpha coefficient of .76 was found at time 1 (1) and of .86 at time 2 (2). Chronbach alpha coefficients of .69 and .81 were respectively found for positive affect at time 1 (1) and (2).
Demographic and bogus questions about the participant‟s weight, height, health and health behaviour were also included in the study. For more details see Appendix D.
Motivation and effort were measured using 5 items. The participants indicated to what extent they agreed with statements such as “Did you liked the handgrip task?”, which could be answered on a 7-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 6 (extremely) (see Appendix E). The scale had a good internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .74.
Three persistence measures were used to measure persistence. First the participants chose which task they would prefer to do next. They could choose between the handgrip endurance task, another physical task or a puzzle task (Persistence 1). Next, all the
participants performed the handgrip endurance task once again. Their time was recorded and used as a second measurement of persistence (Persistence 2). Then the participants indicate on
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 15 a 7-point likert scale to what extent they would like to do the handgrip task again (Persistence 3). Persistence measure 1 and 3 are presented in Appendix F.
A few final questions were included at the end of the online survey. The participants were asked to indicate how they felt about the perceived messages (verbal persuasion and failure message), and what they thought was the purpose of the study (see Appendix G for more details).
Procedure
After arriving in the lab, participants were informed about the study (see Appendix H for the information form and informed consent) and completed the RSES (Franck, De Raedt, Barbez, & Rosseel, 2008). The participants were told that the study was about examining physical endurance between students. They were told that this was examined using a
programme that was developed by human movement scientists. It consisted of a few questions about their physical health and three physical tasks to examine their endurance. As part of the coverstory, they were told that half of the participants received an online programme and half of the participants received a written programme. All participants actually took part in the online programme. Further instructions followed on the computer screen.
Then the participants performed the first handgrip endurance task. They were instructed to squeeze the handgrip as long as possible in their dominant hand, without leaning their elbows or arms. A die was placed between the handles, if it felt, the researcher knew that the participant had released the handgrip. The researcher timed how long the participants held the handles squeezed by using a stopwatch (as in Fujita et al., 2006). The participants were not aware of the recorded time or how well they performed. The elapsed time was used as the baseline measurement.
After measuring the baseline duration, the participants returned to the computer and answered questions about task-specific self-efficacy (T1) and affect (1), followed by some
questions about demographic information and some bogus questions about their daily
physical activity and about their physical features (including height and weight). Their overall fitness abilities were supposedly calculated, and in the verbal persuasion condition a self-efficacy message was presented on the screen („You can do it!‟). The bogus questions were used to ensure that the verbal persuasion that followed (in the verbal persuasion condition) seemed credible.
Next, they performed the second handgrip endurance task. The instruction for the second handgrip measure was identical to the instructions of the baseline measure, and the participants were not aware of their recorded time or how well they performed. After this, they answered the self-efficacy questionnaire again (T2), and some questions about their motivation and effort. Then participants entered their time in the computer programme and failure feedback (“You have a low score. 83% of the students with similar characteristics were able to sqeeuze the handgrip longer. So you didn‟t accomplished the task.”) appeared on the screen.
Next, self-efficacy (T3) and affect (2) were measured again, and the participants were asked to choose which task they would like to do next. Then they performed the handgrip endurance task again, and were asked to indicate to which extent they would like to do the handgrip task in another experiment. These questions and this third task were used to measure persistence.
At the end, the participants answered some questions about the verbal persuasion message (only in the verbal persuasion condition), about the failure feedback, and some final questions about the purpose of the study. The participant were thanked for participating in the research and a thorough debriefing followed. The participants were told of the importance of not telling other potential subjects about the details of the study (see Appendix I for the debriefing).
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 17 Results
Of the 70 participants, 4 participants were eliminated from analysis because they completed a different (earlier) version of the experiment. Another 2 participants were
excluded, because they were aware of the purpose of the study. This resulted in a total sample size of 64 participants to be included in further analysis. A total of 5 participants released the handgrip by mistake. These handgrip scores, as well as the self-efficacy scores, were not reliable and were entered as missing values. Pairwise exclusion of missing data was used in the analysis.
Factor analysis of the affect items
A factor analysis was conducted to identify the underlying factor structure of the affect scale. The 12 items of the affect scale (time 1) were subjected to a principal components analysis (PCA). Prior to performing PCA, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the correlation matrix (see Table 1) revealed the presence of multiple coefficients of .3 or above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was .74, exceeding the
recommended value of .6 (Kaiser 1970, 1974) and Barlett‟s Test of Sphericity (Barlett, 1954) reached statistical significance (p < .001), supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix. Principal component analysis revealed the presence of four components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 21.32%, 16.39%, 14.15% and 12.46% of the variance respectively. An inspection of the screeplot revealed a break between after the second
component. Thus, it was decided to retain two components for further investigation. The two-component solution explained a total of 45.90% of the variance, with Component 1
contributing 23.39% and Component 2 contributing 21.96%. To aid in the interpretation of these two components, Varimax rotation was performed. The rotated solution revealed that both components showed a number of strong loadings and that all variables loaded
was consistent with previous research of the PANAS scale, with positive affect items loading strongly on Component 1 and negative affect items loading strongly on component 2. There was a negative correlation between the two factors (r = -.664). The results of this analysis support the use of the positive affect items and negative affect items as separate scales.
The two component solution explained a total of 58.70% of the variance for the affect scale at time 2, with Component 1 contributing 32.44% and Component 2 contributing 26.26%. There was also a negative correlation between the two factors (r = -.629) Preliminary analyses
Prior to evaluating the hypotheses, a variety of visual and statistical analyses were conducted in order to assess the normality of the distributions and check for outliers. The distributions of all variables of interest were reasonably normal, and no extreme outliers were found.
Furthermore, an initial set of correlation analyses were conducted in order to evaluate the relationships between the variables. Besides the expected correlations (such as the correlations among the self-efficacy scores), a few interesting correlations were found. Self-efficacy was positively related to motivation and effort. Also, negative affect at time 2 was negatively related with self-efficacy scores at time 3. Resulting correlation coefficients can be found in Table 3, along with the means and standard deviations of the examined variables.
As part of a randomization check, independent t-tests were conducted to examine if the two conditions differed. No differences in age, self-esteem, self-efficacy, affect, and handgrip time 1 were found (see Table 4).
To compare self-esteem, self-efficacy, affect and handgrip time scores for males and females, independent t-tests were conducted (see Table 5). There were no significant differences in self-esteem, self-efficacy, negative and positive affect scores. Therefore, data for males and females was pooled and all following results are presented reflecting the
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 19 combined data. As for handgrip time, a significant difference indicated that males squeezed the handgrip longer than females. Therefore, gender was recoded into a dummy variable and was included as a covariate in the analysis with the handgrip measures.
The location in which the participants were tested, was identified as a possible
confounding variable. Therfore, we compared self-esteem, self-efficacy, affect and handgrip time scores for the two locations using independent t-tests (see Table 6). There were no significant differences in self-esteem and negative affect scores. Therefore, data for both locations was pooled and all following results are presented reflecting the combined data. For self-efficacy, positive affect and handgrip time, significant differences were found. The idependent t-tests indicated that the participants tested in the larger rooms, had higher self-efficacy and positive affect scores and squeezed the handgrip longer thanthe participants tested in private cubicles. Therefore, location was recoded into a dummy variable and was included as a covariate in the analyses with self-efficacy, positive affect scores and handgrip measures.
Self-efficacy
Our primary hypotheses predicted an effect of verbal persuasion versus control on self-efficacy beliefs. A repeated measures ANCOVA was conducted to examine if participants in the verbal persuasion condition have higher self-efficacy beliefs at time 2 than at time 1, and if they have lower self-efficacy beliefs at time 3 than at time 2, than participants in the control condition. In this GLM, condition (verbal persuasion or control) was the between-group variable and self-efficacy scores at time 1, 2, and 3 were the repeated measures within-group variables. To control for location, this variable was dummy coded and entered as a constant covariate.
Preliminary assumption testing was conducted to check for normality, linearity, homogenity of variances, homogenity of regression slopes, and reliable measure of the
covariate, with no serious violations noted. The slope of the covariate was not the same across levels of self-efficacy scores from Time 1, 2 and 3. Therfore, it was excluded from this
analysis.
The repeated measures ANOVA (with Huynh-Feldt correction) did not reveal a
significant main effect of condition, F (1, 57) = .00, p = .966, partial η2 = .000, suggesting that there was no difference in the self-efficacy scores for the two conditions, when controlling for the constant covariate. There was a substantial main effect of time, F (1.88, 107.19) = 59.34, p <.001, partial η2 = .510, with both groups showing an overall change in self-efficacy scores across the 3 different time periods, when controlling for the covariate. Post-hoc analysis revealed that this effect was due to a significant drop in self-efficacy from time 2 (M = 65. 57, SD = 16.26) to 3 (M = 48.44, SD = 19.98).
There was no significant interaction between condition and time, F (1.88, 107.19) = .88, p = .410, partial η2 = .015. This suggests that the changes in self-efficacy from time 1 to 2, time 2 to 3, and time 1 to 3 did not differ between the conditions. The means and standard deviations of the self-efficacy scores are presented in Table 7.
Affect
The hypothesis that verbal persuasion (versus control) leads to more negative affect in the failure context and that this effect was moderated by self-esteem, was examined with a repeated measures ANCOVA. Condition was independent (between-group) variable, negative affect scores at time 1 and 2 (NA1, NA2) were the dependent (within-subject) variables, and self-esteem was included as a moderator (covariate).
Preliminary checks were conducted to ensure that there was no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity, homogenity of variances, homogenity of regression slopes, and reliable measure of the covariate.
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 21 The main effect comparing the two conditions was not statistically significant, F (1, 59) = .68, p = .413, partial η2 = .011, suggesting that there was no difference in negative affect scores for the two conditions. There was also no significant main effect for time, F (1, 59) = .39, p = .535, partial η2 = .007, with both groups showing no change in negative affect scores across the two time periods (see Table 8). There was no significant interaction between condition and time, F (1, 59) = .10, p = .757, partial η2 = .002, while controlling for self-esteem. This suggests that the changes in negative affect scores from time 1 to 2 did not differ between the conditions. There was a significant effect of self-esteem, F (1, 59) = 5.38, p = .024, with a small partial η2 of .084.
Next, a repeated measures ANCOVA was conducted to assess the impacts of the two different conditions (control condition, verbal persuasion condition) on participants‟ scores on the positive affect scale, across two time periods (1, 2). Self-esteem was entered as a
moderator (covariate) and the dummy coded variable for location was also entered as a covariate. Preliminary checks ensured that no assumptions were violated.
There was no significant main effect for condition, F (1, 58) = .01, p = .918, partial η2 = .000, suggesting that there were no differences in positive affect scores for the two condition, while controlling for self-esteem and location. The main effect for time was marginally significant, F (1, 58) = 2.99, p = .089, partial η2 = .049, with both group showing a decrease in positive affect scores. Furthermore, there was no significant interaction between condition and time, F (1, 58) = .68, p = .412, partial η2 = .012 (see Table 8). There was a significant effect of self-esteem, F (1, 58) = 18.19, p < .001, partial η2 = .239. There was no significant effect of location on the self-efficacy scores across the three time points, F (1, 58) = 2.51, p = .118, partial η2
= .042. Handgrip performance
To examine if participants who were verbally persuaded showed a better performance on the handgrip task (squeezed the handgrip longer at time 2), an ANCOVA was conducted. Condition was the independent variable, handgrip endurance time 2 the dependent variable. To control for individual differences in strength at the baseline, handgrip endurance time 1 will be entered as a covariate. Furthermore, gender and location were entered as constant covariates.
Preliminary checks were conducted to ensure that there was no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity, homogeneity of variances, homogeneity of regression slopes, and reliable measure of the covariate. There was a interaction between the covariate „location‟ and conditions; the assumption of homogeneity of regression slopes was violated for this variable. Therfore, this covariate was not included in the analysis.
After adjusting for the baseline handgrip scores and gender, there was no significant difference between the control condition (M = 118.83, SD = 75.97) and the verbal persuasion condition (M = 93.51, SD = 40.28) on handgrip endurance time 2, F (1, 55) = .55, p = .463, partial η2
= .010. There was a strong relationship between the handgrip score at time 1 and 2, as indicated by a partial eta squared of .346, p < .001. Handgrip endurance time 1 explained 34.6% of the variance in handgrip endurance time 2. There was a weak relationship between gender and handgrip time 2, as indicated by a partial eta squared of .067, p = .052.
Motivation and effort
Similarly we expected that participants in the verbal persuasion condition would show more motivation and effort than the participants in the control condition. An one-way ANOVA was performed to investigate differences in motivation and effort for the two conditions. The dependent variable was motivation and effort, and the independent variable was condition (verbal persuasion/ control). There was no significant difference in motivation
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 23 and effort between the verbal persuasion condition (M = 4.91, SD = .88) and the control condition (M = 5.12, SD = .88), F (1, 59) = .83, p = .366, partial η2 = .014.
Exploratory analyses: Persistence
Exploratory analyses were conducted to see whether there were differences in persistence for the two conditions. First, a Chi-square test with condition as independent variable and task-preference choice as the dependent measure (Persistence 1) was conducted. However, the assumption of minimum expected cell frequency was violated due to a small amount of participants chosing for the handgrip measure. Since both the choice for the handgrip measure or the physical task are physical tasks, we we combined these. Thus, persistence 1 transformed into a dichotomous variable (physical task or puzzle task). The Chi-square test (with Yates Continuity correction) revealed a non-significant effect, χ2 (2, n = 64) = 2.25, p = .133, and a small effect (phi = .22).
Next, an ANCOVA was conducted to explore if there was a difference between the conditions and handgrip time 3 (Persistence 2). Condition was the independent variable, gandgrip time 3 the dependent variable, and handgrip time 1 the covariate. Preliminary checks were conducted to ensure that there was no violation of the assumptions of normality,
linearity, homogenity of variances, homogenity of regression slopes, and reliable measure of the covariate. There was no significant difference in handgrip time 3 (Persistence 2) for participants in the control condition (M = 98.64, SD = 53.41) and the verbal persuasion
condition (M = 85.66, SD = 42.19), after controlling for scores on handgrip time 1, F (1, 59) = .195, p = .660, partial η2 = .003. There was a strong relationship between the handgrip score at time 1 and 2, as indicated by a partial eta squared of .352, p < .001. Handgrip endurance time 1 explained 35.2% of the variance in handgrip endurance time 3.
Finally, we examined whether there was a difference in the extent to which the
not support the assumptions underlying a parametric test, so a Mann-Whitley U test was conducted. The Mann-Whitney U test revealed no significant difference in persistence of the verbal persuasion condition (Mean Rank = 35.72, n = 32) and control condition (Mean Rank = 29.28, n = 32), U = 409, z = -1.41, p = .159, r = .176.
Exploratory analysis: Self-efficacy and negative affect
In addition, we examined whether there was a relation between difference scores in self-efficacy (from time 2 to 3) and difference scores in negative affect (from 1 to 2). A Spearman rho correlation revealed a medium, positive relationship between the two variables (r = .38, n = 59, p = .003), with a larger decrease in self-efficacy associated with a larger increase in negative affect.
Discussion
The present study is one of the first to examine the effects of self-efficacy enhancement through verbal persuasion in the context of failure. Half of the participants were verbally persuaded before they received a failure message. Self-esteem, self-efficacy beliefs, affect, performance (handgrip endurance time), motivation, effort and persistence were assessed.
First and foremost we expected that the verbal persuasion (versus control) would initially lead to higher self-efficacy beliefs in the participants, whereas a strong decrease in self-efficacy would be prominent in the participants who received the verbal persuasion after the failure message. However, no effects were found to support this hypothesis. Although we failed to find a difference in self-efficacy change for the two conditions, there was a
significant drop in self-efficacy after the failure message for both conditions. This is in line with Bandura‟s theory (1977), where failures are expected to undermine one‟s self-efficacy beliefs. This results does support the expectation that failure has a negative effect on self-efficacy beliefs.
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 25 Furthermore, we expected that the participants who were verbally persuaded would show more negative affect (like shame) after failure compared to the participants who were not persuaded. As mentioned before, Brummelman et al. (2013) found that the shame-inducing effect of ability praise in the face of failure was especially prominent in childeren with low levels of self-esteem. Pursuant to these findings, we expected that self-esteem would moderate the effect. However, the current study failed to find a significant difference in negative affect for the verbal persuasion condition and the control condition. Also, no differences in positive affect were found between the conditions. Positive affect did seem to decreased after the failure message. This seems to supports the notion that failure has a negative effect on how people feel.
Next, it was hypothesized that verbal persuasion would lead to better performance on the handgrip task. No significant difference in performance for the two conditions was found. This is contrary to studies by Anderacci et al. (2002), Bickers et al. (1993), Guyatt et al. (1984), and Mayfield et al. (2012), who found that verbal persuasion led to better performances.
Exploratory analyses of persistence revealed no differences between the two conditions. Results did not reveal a significant difference between the two conditions. The participants did not differ on the task-preference choice, handgrip endurance time 3 or on the single persistence item.
Results did reveal a positive correlation between the difference in self-efficacy scores from time 2 to 3 and difference in negative affect scores. A larger decrease in self-efficacy was related with more negative affect.
Alternative explanations
Interestingly, no positive effects of verbal persuasion were found on self-efficacy, performance, motivation and effort. Perhaps the verbal persuasion was not powerful enough,
or that the message was not credible. Thus, the verbal persuasion message might not have had the desired effect. The participants were verbally persuaded by a written computer message, which could be less influential or meaningful to them. Perhaps they attach less value to these computer-generated messages, because the computer does not judge them. It is possible that the social presence of another person would increase their self-focus more, and elicit
increased feelings of shame.
Moreover, it is important to note that while conducting the experiment, a remarkable number of participants made comments about them not being able to perform the handgrip task the best they could. For example, they indicated that they were tired or had muscle pain. It seemed like they were making external attributions in advance, thereby justifying any upcoming mistakes or disappointing outcomes. Numerous studies, have examined the concept of self-talk in sport settings (Hardy, Hall, & Alexander, 2001; Hatzigeorgiadis, Galanis, Zourbanos & Theodorakis, 2014). Individuals have been shown to be able to motivate and instruct themselves by talking to themselves, which can lead to better performance. Hence, the internal attribution of failure as suggested by the verbal persuasion message might compete with the external attribution as suggested by self-talk, observed in this study.
Following these explanations, verbal persuasion might not have been manipulated effectively. If the verbal persuasions did not have the desired effect, any differences between the verbal persuasion condition and control condition would be difficult to find.
Limitations and future directions
The study has a few limitations that could have affected the results. First of all, the sample of this study was not representative. It consisted of students, these individuals are higher educated, and have possibly more self-esteem than individuals from the normal population. It is possible that higher educated people rely more on their own judgments, and are less easy influenced by verbal persuasion, or statements by others. Besides, most students
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 27 have participated in similar studies, where feedback is manipulated. When asked about the purpose of the study, a majority of the participants believed the study was about negative or positive feedback. Recruiting participants with different academic backgrounds is therefore recommended in future research. Ideally, the research design would be refined and the messages would be made more realistic.
Due to practical implications, the study took place at three different locations. Therefore, the circumstances under which the study was conducted were not equal. About half of the participants were tested in private cubicles and half of the participants were tested in larger rooms, where the researcher was present during the whole experiment. We did include this variable as a covariate, but in follow-up research the conditions should be equal for all participants.
Furthermore, the handgrip task might have been relatively exhausting. Participants can differ in effort scores when performing this task. When they try really hard on the first task, they might not have enough strength to perform the second task better. We did had short breaks between each tasks, but participants might differ in time needed to recover. Besides, it is related to self-regulation (ego depletion) and therefore it presumably leads to lower scores, when performed multiple times.
A further limitation of the study was the sample size. It is possible that the current study did not have enough power to discriminate between the two conditions. The sample size was reduced due to elimination of a few participants. Collecting more data would help us pin down the effects more precisely.
The findings for affect differed from the previous study of Brummelman et al. (2013). This can perhaps be attributed to the affect items used in the present study. Although the 12 affect items had high internal consistency, they were very general and direct. Most people
were likely to choose a value at the low end of the scale. Further research could incorporate more „subtle‟ items, to enhance the distribution of this variable.
Given these limitations, no definite conclusions can be drawn from this study. Future research is necessary to investigate the effects of verbal persuasion in more depth.
Concluding remarks
The present research represents one of the first empirical attempts to examine the possible negative effects of verbal persuasion when facing failure. Despite the fact that no significant differences between the conditions were found, this research does provide a basis for future research. As such, we believe it serves as an invitation to further explore the concept of verbal persuasion, its effects, and possible practical restrictions.
Apart from some potentially interesting correlations between self-efficacy and
motivation and effort, and negative affect and self-efficacy, we failed to find any significant role for these variables. However, the results do suggest that failure undermines self-efficacy and has negative effects on people‟s feelings (affect). Moreover, a decrease in self-efficacy might be responsible for this increase in negative affect. Understanding the effects of verbal persuasion and failure on self-efficacy, affect, motivation and persistence has important implications for effective feedback messages prior to performance and after performance. Boosting and maintaining confidence in yourself can induce the first efforts toward behavior change. Note that the findings of this research must be considered in light of its limitations. Although the support underlying the theoretical assumptions is weak, future research is needed.
Nevertheless, albeit preliminary and exploratory in nature, this study emphasizes the importance of feedback when individuals are faced with failure. Once again the importance of understanding the qualities of good feedback becomes evident. For now, we believe that feedback should be realistic, individually tailored, and related to the individuals‟ skill level in
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 29 the activity to minimize the chance of failure. Further explorations will contribute to our knowledge of how self-efficacy can be enhanced, which is the essence of many health related behaviors. Future research is needed to answer whether verbal persuasion can enhance self-efficacy or is can be disheartening.
References
Alderman, M. K. (1999). Goals and goal setting. Motivation for ahievement: possibilities for teaching and learning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Anderson, C. A., & Jennings, D. J. (1980). When experiences of failure promote expectations of success: The impact of attributing failure to ineffective strategies. Journal of
Personality, 48, 393–407.
Andreacci, J. L., Lemura, L. M., Cohen, S. L., Urbansky, E. A., Chelland, S. A., & Duvillard, S. P. V. (2002). The effects of frequency of encouragement on performance during maximal exercise testing. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(4), 345-352.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, 5(307-337).
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of Mental Health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 31 Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square
approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 296-298.
Battle, J. (1990). Self-esteem: The new revolution. Edmonton, Canada: James Battle and Associates.
Bickers, M. J. (1993). Does verbal encouragement work? The effect of verbal encouragement on a muscular endurance task. Clinical Rehabilitation, 7(3), 196-200.
Brown, J., & Weiner, B. (1984). Affective consequences of ability versus effort ascriptions: Controversies, resolutions, and quandaries.
Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Overbeek, G., Orobio de Castro, B., van den Hout, M. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2014). On feeding those hungry for praise: Person praise backfires in children with low self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 9. Brus, H., Van de Laar, M., Taal, E., Rasker, J., & Wiegman, O. (1999). Determinants of
compliance with medication in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the importance of self-efficacy expectations. Patient Education and Counseling, 36(1), 57-64.
Clifford, M. M. (1986a). The comparative effects of strategy and effort attributions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 75–83.
Clifford, M. M. (1986b). The effects of ability, strategy, and effort attributions for
educational, business, and athletic failure. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 169–179.
Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43(3), 245-265.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Foote, C. J. (1999). Attribution feedback in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 13(2), 155-166.
Franck, E., De Raedt, R., Barbez, C., & Rosseel, Y. (2008). Psychometric properties of the Dutch Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Psychologica Belgica, 48(1), 25-35.
Friedman, L. C., Webb, J. A., Bruce, S., Weinberg, A. D., & Cooper, H. P. (1995). Skin cancer prevention and early detection intentions and behavior. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 11(1), 59-65.
Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 351.
Guyatt, G. H., Pugsley, S. O., Sullivan, M. J., Thompson, P. J., Berman, L., Jones, N. L., ... & Taylor, D. W. (1984). Effect of encouragement on walking test performance. Thorax, 39(11), 818-822.
Hardy, J., Hall, C. R., & Alexander, M. R. (2001). Exploring self-talk and affective states in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19(7), 469-475.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Galanis, E., Zourbanos, N., & Theodorakis, Y. (2014). Self-talk and competitive sport performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 26(1), 82-95. Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35(4), 401-415. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36. Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and criticism:
implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 835.
Khaw, K. T., Wareham, N., Bingham, S., Welch, A., Luben, R., & Day, N. (2008). Combined impact of health behaviours and mortality in men and women: the EPIC-Norfolk
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 33 King, D. E., Mainous III, A. G., Carnemolla, M., & Everett, C. J. (2009). Adherence to
healthy lifestyle habits in US adults, 1988-2006. The American Journal of Medicine, 122(6), 528-534.
Lamarche, L., Gionfriddo, A. M., Cline, L. E., Gammage, K. L., & Adkin, A. L. (2014). What would you do? The effect of verbal persuasion on task choice. Gait & Posture, 39(1), 583-587.
Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy-performing spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 645-678.
Maddux, J. E., & Lewis, J. (1995). Self-efficacy and adjustment. In Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment (pp. 37-68). Springer US.
Maddux, J. E., & Gosselin, J. T. (2003). Self-efficacy. Handbook of self and identity, 218-238. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (2012). The Relationship Between Leader Motivating Language and Self-Efficacy A Partial Least Squares Model Analysis. Journal of Business
Communication, 49(4), 357-376.
McAlister, A. L., Perry, C. L., & Parcel, G. S. (2008). How individuals, environments, and health behaviors interact: Social Cognitive Theory. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and health education; theory, research, and practice (4eth ed.), pp. 169-188. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Middleton, K. R., Anton, S. D., & Perri, M. G. (2013). Long-term adherence to health behavior change. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 7(6), 395-404.
Mishali, M., Omer, H., & Heymann, A. D. (2011). The importance of measuring self-efficacy in patients with diabetes. Family Practice, 28(1), 82-87.
Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, K. R., & Mack, D. E. (2000). The relation of
self-efficacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(3), 280-294.
Perry, C. L., Bishop, D. B., Taylor, G. L., Davis, M., Story, M., Gray, C., & Harnack, L. (2004). A randomized school trial of environmental strategies to encourage fruit and vegetable consumption among children. Health Education & Behavior, 31(1), 65-76. Rhodes, R. E., Plotnikoff, R. C., & Courneya, K. S. (2008). Predicting the physical activity intention–behavior profiles of adopters and maintainers using three social cognition models. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 36(3), 244-252.
Schunk, D. H. (1983). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Differential effects on self- efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75,848-856.
Silver, W. S., Mitchell, T. R., & Gist, M. E. (1995). Responses to successful and unsuccessful performance: The moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between
performance and attributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(3), 286-299.
Sprange, K., Mountain, G. A., Brazier, J., Cook, S. P., Craig, C., Hind, D., ... & Horner, K. (2013). Lifestyle Matters for maintenance of health and wellbeing in people aged 65 years and over: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials, 14(1), 302. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 240.
Stroebe, W. (2011). Social psychology and health. McGraw-Hill International. Vargas-Tonsing, T. M., Myers, N. D., & Feltz, D. L. (2004). Coaches' and Athletes'
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 35 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548.
Weiner, B. (2001). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attribution perspective. In Student Motivation (pp. 17-30). Springer US.
Williams, D. M., Lewis, B. A., Dunsiger, S., Whiteley, J. A., Papandonatos, G. D.,
Napolitano, M. A., ... & Marcus, B. H. (2008). Comparing psychosocial predictors of physical activity adoption and maintenance. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 36(2), 186-194.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.
Table 1
Correlations between all Affect Items at Time 1 (Affect1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Determined 1.00 -.31 .17 -.04 .37 .00 2. Clumsy 1.00 -.11 .24 -.31 .34 3. Excited 1.00 -.16 .68 -.10 4. Tensed 1.00 -.32 .29 5. Confident 1.00 -.34 6. Ashamed 1.00 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Determined .17 .02 .06 .00 .28 -.11 2. Clumsy -.18 .26 -.12 .27 -.12 .27 3. Excited .48 -.18 .11 -.19 .22 -.21 4. Tensed -.29 .25 -.27 .28 -.18 .15 5. Confident .56 -.19 .25 -.23 .32 -.26 6. Ashamed -.33 .37 -.25 .48 -.01 .42 7. Energetic 1.00 -.15 .47 -.23 .28 -.28 8. Irritable 1.00 -.08 .53 .03 .48 9. Strong 1.00 -.08 .20 -.33 10. Guilty 1.00 -.10 .39 11. Interested 1.00 -.09 12. Dissapointed 1.00
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 37 Table 2
Rotated Component Matrix for PCA with Varimax Rotation of Two Factor Solution for the Affect Items
Item Rotated Component Matrix Communalities
Component 1 Component 2 Irritable .776 .068 .606 Guilty .763 -.027 .583 Ashamed .743 -.107 .564 Dissapointed .682 -.154 .489 Clumsy .449 -.269 .274 Tensed .428 -.303 .275 Confident -.287 .801 .724 Energetic -.307 .694 .576 Excited -.157 .674 .479 Interested .055 .611 .376 Determined .080 .558 .318 Strong -.273 .410 .243
Table 3.
Overall Variable Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations
M SD Age RSES SE1 SE2 SE3 NA1 PA1
Age 21.84 2.74 1 -.06 .01 -.08 .06 .17 .03 RSES 21.59 4.73 1 .04 .19 .13 -.33** .54** SE1 68.75 14.55 1 .68** .59** -.37** .23 SE2 65.57 16.26 1 .70** -.16 .33* SE3 48.44 19.98 1 -.33** .18 NA1 14.44 4.87 1 -.40** PA1 30.37 4.08 1
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 39
Note. RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. SE = self-efficacy. NA = negative affect. PA = positive affect. MotEff = motivation and effort. HG = handgrip time. Pers = Persistence. *p < .05. **p < .001
M SD NA2 PA2 MotEff HG1 HG2 HG3 Pers. 3 Age .07 .03 -.30* .14 .20 .24 -.08 RSES -.22 .44** .22 .02 -.02 -.03 -.10 SE1 -.07 -.06 .46** .39** .37** .29* .16 SE2 -.10 .22 .55** -.03 .19 .17 .04 SE3 -.46** .29* .29* .10 .23 .16 .05 NA1 .60** -.33** -.25 -.23 .01 .05 -.12 PA1 -.18 .67** .30* .05 .16 .06 .10 NA2 17.64 7.39 1 -.53** .00 -.10 .04 .11 .11 PA2 27.75 5.92 1 .07 -.02 .07 .00 -.02 MotEff 5.00 .88 1 .14 .07 .10 .31* HG1 108.63 67.73 1 .68** .60** .14 HG2 107.46 61.25 1 .72** .15 HG3 (Pers. 2) 93.28 47.89 1 .21 Pers. 3 3.97 1.78 1
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics and T-test Results for Condition: Age, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), Self-efficacy at Time 1 (SE1), Negative Affect (NA1), Positive Affect (PA1), and Handgrip Time at Baseline (HG1)
Control condition Verbal persuasuion condition 95% CI Outcome M SD M SD n t df Age 22.19 2.93 21.50 2.54 64 [-.68, 2.06] 1.00 62 RSES 21.09 4.34 22.09 5.11 64 [-3.37, 1.37] -.84 62 SE1 69.33 15.32 68.20 14.02 62 [-6.32, 8.59] .31 60 NA1 14.17 4.89 14.69 4.91 62 [-3.01, 1.97] -.42 60 PA1 30.10 4.27 30.62 3.94 62 [-2.61, 1.56] -.50 60 HG1 119.12 74.17 98.81 60.62 62 [-13.99, 54.64] 1.19 60 Note. No differences between the two conditions were found.
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 41 Table 5
Descriptive Statistics and T-test Results for Gender: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), Self-efficacy at Time 1 (SE1), Negative Affect at Time 1 (NA1), Positive Affect at Time 1 (NA1), and Handgrip Task at Time 1 (HG1)
Male Female 95% CI Outcome M SD n M SD n t df RSESsom 21.86 5.82 21 21.47 4.17 43 [-2.14, 2.93] .31 62 SE1 71.33 10.02 20 67.52 16.24 42 [-4.11, 11.72] .96 60 NA1 14.60 5.67 20 14.36 4.51 42 [-2.42, 2.91] .18 60 PA1 30.40 4.82 20 30.36 3.74 42 [-2.19, 2.28] .04 60 HG1 150.65 69.42 20 88.62 57.62 42 [28.55, 95.51] 3.71* 60
Note. Males and females differed on handgrip time 1. * p < .05.
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics and T-test Results for Location: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), Self-efficacy at Time 1 (SE1), Negative Affect at Time 1 (NA1), Positive Affect at Time 1 (NA1), and Handgrip Task at Time 1 (HG1)
Private cubicles Larger rooms 95% CI
Outcome M SD n M SD n t df RSESsom 20.83 4.54 35 22.52 4.87 29 [-4.04, .67] -1.43 62 SE1 65.01 14.23 34 73.28 13.87 28 [15.44, -1.08] -2.30* 60 NA1 15.21 5.06 34 13.50 4.53 28 [-.76, 4.17] 1.38 60 PA1 28.79 3.78 34 32.29 3.63 28 [-5.39, -1.60] -3.69* 60 HG1 83.06 49.31 34 139.70 74.62 28 [88.28, -25.00] -3.58** 60
Note. Significant differences were found for self-efficacy, positive affect and handgrip task 1. * p < .05. **p < .01.
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 43 Table 7
The Means and Standard Deviations for Self-efficacy at Time 1, 2 and 3
Control condition Verbal persuasion condition
M SD M SD
SE1 69.33 15.32 67.21 14.09
SE2 64.18a 15.97 66.82a 17.24
SE3 49.83b 20.05 48.80b 20.42
Table 8
The Means and Standard Deviations for Negative Affect 1 and 2
Control condition Verbal persuasion condition
M SD M SD
NA1 14.17 4.89 14.69 4.91
NA2 16.93 7.27 17.87 7.49
PA1 30.10 4.27 30.63 3.94
PA2 27.77 6.21 27.69 5.86
EFFECTS OF VERBAL PERSUASION IN A FAILURE CONTEXT 45 Appendix A
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES)
Algemene vragen.
Wat is je geslacht? □ man □ vrouw
Wat is je geboortedatum (datum-maand-jaar)? ……….
Wat is je woonplaats? ……….
Wat is je nationaliteit? ……….
Hieronder volgen 10 beweringen over je over jezelf. Het gaat erom hoe jij je over het algemeen voelt. Kruis het antwoord dat het meest op jou van toepassing is.
Helemaal eens
Eens Oneens Helemaal oneens 1. Over het algemeen ben ik tevreden met mezelf. □ □ □ □ 2. Op sommige momenten denk ik dat ik
helemaal niet deug. □ □ □ □
3. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik een aantal goede
kwaliteiten heb. □ □ □ □
4. Ik ben in staat dingen even goed te doen als de
meeste andere mensen. □ □ □ □
5. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik niet veel heb om trots
op te zijn. □ □ □ □
6. Op sommige momenten voel ik mij nutteloos. □ □ □ □
7. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik een waardevol iemand
ben, minstens even veel waard als anderen. □ □ □ □
8. Ik wou dat ik meer respect voor mezelf kon
opbrengen. □ □ □ □
9. Al met al ben ik geneigd mezelf een
mislukkeling te voelen. □ □ □ □
10. Ik neem een positieve houding aan ten
opzichte van mezelf. □ □ □ □
Appendix B Self-efficacy
Hieronder volgen enkele vragen die gaan over jouw gevoel over de handgreeptaak op dit moment. Geef aan in hoeverre je het gevoel hebt dat je het beschreven gedrag kan. Sleep de schuiver naar het antwoord dat het beste op jou van toepassing is, van 0 (helemaal niet) naar 100 (helemaal wel).
1. De handgreeptaak goed uitvoeren. Dit kan ik..
Helemaal niet Enigszins Helemaal wel 0---50---100
2. De handgreeptaak lang genoeg volhouden. Dit kan ik..
Helemaal niet Enigszins Helemaal wel 0---50---100
3. De handgreeptaak zo lang volhouden als van me gevraagd wordt. Dit kan ik..
Helemaal niet Enigszins Helemaal wel 0---50---100
4. De handgreeptaak net zo goed als anderen uitvoeren. Dit kan ik..
Helemaal niet Enigszins Helemaal wel 0---50---100
