Educational Psychology, Vol. 24, No.

1, February 2004

The Concept of Expectancy: A central factor in various personality dispositions

ThorleifLundDepartment of Special Needs EducationUniversity of OsloOsloNO-0318P.O. Box 1140 BlindernNorwaythorleif.lund@isp.uio.no

Richard Haugen1, Yngvar Ommundsen2, Thorleif Lund3*

1

University of Troms, Norway; 2University of Sport and Physical Education, Oslo, Norway; 3University of Oslo, Norway

The hypothesis that the concept of expectancy is a central common core of various personality dispositions was investigated among 228 students of general education and physical education. The participants were scored on the following personality dispositions: global and academic self-concept, optimistic-pessimistic attributional style, motive to seek success, motive to avoid failure, cognitive anxiety, and self-handicapping tendencies. Marital status and geographical location/area of study of respondents were chosen as discriminative variables. The hypothesis was supported in that factor analysis gave a general bipolar expectancy factor, and cluster analysis resulted in two clusters, one corresponding to a positive expectancy and the other to a negative expectancy.

The expectancy factor is a central human characteristic pertaining to many life situations. An individuals expectancies about future events constitute a powerful guide to his or her choice of activities, and to engagement in these activities. Also, holding positive expectancies has been proven benecial to both physical and psychological wellbeing. For example, Scheier and Carver (1992) have shown that expecting a positive future in general is associated with better physical recovery in coronary heart patients. In a similar vein, Friedman and Rosenman (1974) have reported better coping strategies with serious physical disease among optimists than among pessimists. Moreover, accumulating evidence from a variety of sources indicates that positive expectations or general optimism are benecial with respect to behaviour and achievements as well as to psychological wellbeing (Bandura, 1997; Oettingen, 2000; Ouellette & Wood, 1998; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994). The purpose of the present study is to investigate the empirical evidence for the concept of expectancy within a set of personality dispositions. As indicated above, the concept contains two poles: one optimistic expectancy pole with
*Corresponding author: Department of Special Needs Education, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1140 Blindern, NO-0318 Oslo, Norway. Email: thorleif.lund@isp.uio.no ISSN 0144-3410 (print)/ISSN 1469-046X (online)/04/010043-13 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10/1080.0144341032000146430

44

R. Haugen et al.

related positive affects and one pessimistic expectancy pole with related negative affects. In order to examine both poles of the expectancy concept, relevant dispositions with well-known instruments were chosen for inquiry. Thus, the chosen personality dispositions global and academic self-concept, optimistic-pessimistic attributional style, and motive to seek success are supposed to reect positive expectancies, while the personality dispositions motive to avoid failure, cognitive anxiety, and self-handicapping strategy are supposed to reect negative expectancies. Below, the relation between each disposition and the concept of expectancy will be discussed.

Global and Academic Self-Concept A central human personality disposition is related to the self-concept. James (1890, p. 310) dened self-esteem as a ratio between success and pretensions, that is, the former divided by the latter. Translating the latter as expectations, the ratio implies that if the number and quality of successes in achievement domains largely equal the expectancies of successful outcomes in these domains, the persons self-esteem is protected or enhanced. Similarly, Coopersmith (1970, p. 245) denes self-esteem as a comparison of ones actual performance and capacities with ones personal standards and aspirations, while Marsh (1990, p. 27) denes self-concept as a persons perceptions regarding himself or herself; these perceptions are formed through experience with and interpretations of ones environment. They are especially inuenced by evaluations by signicant others, reinforcements, and attributions for ones own behaviour. All writers, directly or indirectly, express self-concept or self-esteem as the individuals perceptions of his or her achievements in relation to standards and expectations. Their reasoning applies to global self-concept as well as to a more restricted self-concept, that is, an academic self-concept.

Motive to Seek Success and Motive to Avoid Failure Cognitive theories of motivation assume that expectations, based on past experiences, serve to direct behaviour toward particular goals. The motive to seek success and the motive to avoid failure have their roots in one of these theories, the expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation (Atkinson, 1964; Feather, 1982; Heckhausen, 1991). In these models, behaviour is a function of the expectancies that engaging in certain activities will lead to future consequences of success or failure. More precisely, the tendency to undertake an activity is determined by (1) the strength of the motive to seek success (Ms) and the motive to avoid the failure (Mf) and (2) specic situationrelated characteristics such as the incentive value of a possible consequence. The expectancy concept is embedded in these two motives in that a successoriented person (Ms Mf) has a general expectancy that engaging in achieve-

The Concept of Expectancy ment activities will lead to success, whereas a failure-oriented person (Mf has a general expectancy of failure at such activities. Attribution

45 Ms)

Attributional theory holds that people exhibit consistent styles of explaining events in their lives, that is, people exhibit consistent attributional styles (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Peterson & Barrett, 1987; Peterson & Seligman, 1984). Inherent in these attributional styles are the general expectations the person may have when immediate or future task outcomes are evaluated or estimated. One may distinguish between optimistic and pessimistic attributional styles. An optimistic attributional style is characterised by internal, stable, and global attributions to positive events or by external, unstable, and specic attributions to negative events, whereas a pessimistic style corresponds to the opposite pattern: external, unstable, and specic attributions to positive events, or internal, stable, and global attributions to negative events. Therefore, an optimistic and a pessimistic style should reect a general positive and negative expectancy, respectively. Cognitive Anxiety Cognitive anxiety is an important factor in competition and achievement settings. Recent research into anxiety, especially in the eld of sport psychology, has differentiated between cognitive and somatic anxiety. Somatic anxiety is usually regarded as perceptions of bodily symptoms of autonomic reactivity, whereas cognitive anxiety is dened as negative concerns about performance, inability to concentrate, and disrupted attention (Gould & Krane, 1992). According to the conceptual model of sport performance anxiety (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Smith, Smoll, & Schutz, 1990; Spielberger, 1966), appraisal processes related to situational demands in achievement and/or competitive situations that are not in line with the resources available to deal with them, may lead an individual to perceive the situation as threatening or dangerous. It is assumed that the worry component of cognitive anxiety, together with an anticipation of failure, are especially important determinants of the kinds of appraisals made. Those high in cognitive anxiety/worry are hypothesised to perceive an unfavourable balance between demands and resources, which leads to negative expectancy. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that pessimistic expectancy should constitute a central part of negative concern about own performance. Self-Handicapping Strategies One aspect of Covingtons (1992) self-worth theory concerns the individuals perception of his or her ability to achieve competitively. In order to protect self-esteem, however, some people use self-handicapping strategies if they

46

R. Haugen et al.

expect failure (Covington, 1992; Tice, 1991). When using such strategies, such as lack of concentration and sickness, the focus of the failure to perform certain behaviour will be on some cause other than lack of ability. Self-handicapping strategies differ from attributions in that they are aimed at avoiding the appearance of eventual incompetence and can undermine performance (Ommundsen, 2001; Urdan, Midgley, & Anderman, 1998), whereas both strategies are involved in the process of explaining different action outcomes. Hence, a negative expectancy factor should be relevant when self-handicapping strategies are used. Thus, the preceding discussion implies that the expectancy concept is a common core of the mentioned personality dispositions. The purpose of the present study is to test this by factor analysis, and the hypothesis is that a positive and a negative expectancy will be generated. Since the study does not include pure measures of these two expectancies, the expectancies may be represented either as opposite poles of a bipolar factor or as two negatively related factors. Also, cluster analysis will be applied as a supplement, and is expected to result in two clusters, representing the two expectancies.

Method Sample and Procedure In all, 78 student teachers and 90 pre-school student teachers at Agder College in Kristiansand, and 60 students in the Norwegian College of Sport and Physical Education in Oslo (a total of 178 females and 50 males) took part in the study. Most of the students ranged from 20 to 28 years of age (M 25, SD 5.1). The students were told that the purpose of the study was to investigate how students explain particular events, and how these explanations are related to the way they think and feel about themselves. They were further informed that their responses would be treated anonymously, and that there were no right or wrong answers. The students were tested in groups (2030 subjects in each). The scale instructions were given in written form, and they were carefully instructed to work by themselves, and informed that there were no time limits.

Instruments Measure of General Self-Concept. General self-concept was assessed by a context-free, self-acceptance scale modelled after Marshs (1990) self-description questionnaire II (SDQII). The SDQII includes a general-self scale, which is based on Rosenbergs general self-concept and on the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965). Respondents judge the 11 items of the general-self scale on a ve-point scale (5 strongly agree and 1 strongly disagree). An example item is: On the whole, I am satised with myself. The score for a student is their total over the 11 items, resulting in a possible score

The Concept of Expectancy

47

range from 11 to 55. The score increases with increasing self-esteem. The general-self scale possesses high internal consistency at both the total scale ( 0.94) and subscale levels, with a median subscale coefcient of 0.86; range from 0.83 to 0.91 (Keith & Bracken, 1996). The coefcient in the present study is 0.90. Measure of Academic Self-Concept. Song and Hatties (1984) ve-item academic self-concept subscale was used. Like Shavelson, Hubner, and Stanton (1976), Song and Hattie provide a hierarchical model for the organisation of self-concept. However, in contrast to Shavelson et al.s model, where academic self-concept is divided into four subject matter areas, Song and Hattie subdivide academic self-concept into achievement, ability, and classroom self-concepts. These three facets of academic self-concept refer to whether the individual believes he or she is capable of achieving academic success, how the individual feels or perceives actual achievement, and whether the individual feels condent in classroom activities. Respondents judge ve items such as I am satised with my study work on a six-point scale (6 strongly agree and 1 strongly disagree). The score for a student is their sum over the ve items, resulting in a possible score range from 5 to 30. The score increases for increasing academic self-esteem. Hattie (1992) reports coefcients for the academic subscale varying from 0.74 to 0.92, and test-retest coefcients varying from 0.64 to 0.80. The coefcient in the present study is 0.86. Measure of Achievement Motives. The motive to seek success (Ms) and the motive to avoid failure (Mf) were assessed by the achievement motives scale (AMS) (Nygard & Gjesme, 1973). The inventory consists of 30 items, where 15 itemsthe Ms subscalereect the motive to seek success while the remaining itemsthe Mf subscalereect the motive to avoid failure. All 30 items are related to experienced affects in relation to achievement situations. The inventory was adapted to the present college sample, using 11 items in each subscale. The respondent rated each item on a four-point scale (4 very true of me, and 1 not at all true of me). The students Ms and Mf score are given by the sums of the ratings within the two subscales. Hence, for each subscale, the possible score range is from 11 to 44. The score increases with increasing Ms or Mf. Nygard (1977) and Christophersen and Rand (1982) report coefcients varying from 0.60 to 0.80 for the Ms scale and 0.81 to 0.88 for the Mf scale. The coefcients in the present study for the shortened forms of the Ms and Mf scale are 0.77 and 0.87, respectively. Measure of Attribution. The instrument for assessing attribution is identical to the attributional style questionnaire (ASQ) of Peterson et al. (1982), except that it consists of only four negative and four positive events. As can be seen from Table 1, all hypothetical events are related to the students achievement area. For each event, the students were asked to imagine the event happening to them, and then to rate the provided cause on seven-point scales according

48

R. Haugen et al.
Table 1. Negative (14) and positive (58) hypothetical events

1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8)

You are preparing for the nal exam and feel that you do not manage. The lecturer asks you to undo a compulsory written semester project. You do not understand the points of the lecturer. You cant get all the work done that your instructor and your fellow students expect of you. You give an important speech in student parliament, and the audience reacts positively. You apply for an important study at the university, and you are accepted as student. You are asked to administrate an important study project. You meet a friend who compliments you on your good marks at an exam.

to its internality (vs. externality), stability (vs. unstability), and globality (vs. specicity). For each of the three dimensions, the student was given two scores, one by averaging his or her ratings over the four negative events (items 14) and the other by averaging over the four positive events (items 58). In addition, the three scores for each event type were averaged, hence resulting in two composite scores for each student on attributional style, that is, on composite attribution. The score on composite attribution for negative events and for positive events increases with increasing internal, stable, and global attributions. Reliability coefcients in terms of Cronbachs for composite attribution vary in different studies from 0.70 and higher, while the coefcients for the three attributional dimensions turn out more modestly, varying from 0.40 to 0.70 (Peterson, Maier & Seligman, 1993). The coefcients in the present study for internality, stability, globality, and composite attribution for positive events are 0.57, 0.68, 0.63, and 0.81, respectively, whereas the corresponding values for negative events are 0.56, 0.53, 0.73, and 0.63. Thus, the reliabilities of the attributional variables may be considered moderate. In order to construct an optimistic-pessimistic attributional style variable, based on a combination of attributions to positive and negative events, the composite attribution for each event kind was dichotomised, resulting in a high and low attribution group related to positive events and a high and low group related to negative events. Among these four groups, one can identify a true optimistic group (high attributions to positive events and low attributions to negative events; n 47) and a true pessimistic group (low attributions to positive events and high attributions to negative events; n 51). The two remaining groups (high/high and low/low, that is, high attributions to positive and negative events, and low attributions to positive and negative events) were combined into one group (n 127) and named the mixed group. Three students were excluded, due to incomplete scores. Thus, the combination of attributions given to positive and negative events generated three attributional style groups: a true optimistic group, a true pessimistic group, and a mixed group, where the mixed group is considered approximately midway between the two other groups. This bipolar optimistic- pessimistic variable of three categories was used in the analyses.

The Concept of Expectancy

49

Measure of Cognitive Anxiety. Recent research in anxiety in sport psychology has focused on the multidimensional nature of anxiety (Burton, 1988; Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1990; Smith et al., 1990). Cognitive anxiety was assessed by means of the worry subscale of the sport anxiety scale (SAS) developed by Smith et al. 1990). The scale was given a modied stem to t in with the educational context of the present study, and of eight original items two were excluded, as they were considered irrelevant in the present context. The respondent rated each item on a ve-point scale (5 very true of me and 1 not at all true of me). The score for a student is the sum over the six items, resulting in a possible score range from 6 to 30. The score increases for increasing anxiety. The scale has shown satisfactory validity and reliability in previous research (Smith et al., 1990). These researchers, in a study of 490 high school students, reported an coefcient for the scale of 0.89. The coefcient in the present study is 0.87. Measure of Self-Handicapping Strategies. A six-item scale constructed by Urdan and co-workers (Urdan et al., 1998) assessed self-handicapping strategies. Each of the six items relates to proactive strategies students use to inuence self-presentation. The items were modied to t the study situation of the students, such as: Some students let their friends keep them from paying attention in the study situation. Then, if they dont do well they can say that is the reason. How true is this for you? Responses were indicated on a ve-point scale (5 very much like me and 1 very much unlike me). The score for a student is the sum over the ve items, resulting in a possible score range from 5 to 30. The score increases for increasing self-handicapping tendencies. Urdan et al. (1998) report an coefcient for the scale of 0.84, while Ommundsen (2001) reports an coefcient of 0.76. The coefcient in the present study is 0.81. Discriminative Variables. Two variablesmarital status and geographical location/type of study of respondentsserved as discriminative or external variables, each given by a three-category scale. The categories in the marital status scale were unmarried/single (1), cohabitant (2), and married (3), while the categories in the other scale were pre-school student teachers in Kristiansand (1), student teachers in Kristiansand (2), and students of physical education in Oslo (3).

Results The correlation matrix for the seven personality dispositions is given in Table 2. The correlation coefcients are of varying size, but there are only two coefcients, which are not statistically signicant at the 0.001 level. Note that the signs of all the coefcients are in line with positive and negative expectancies.

50

R. Haugen et al.

Table 2. Intercorrelations between the seven personality dispositions: global self-concept (GSC), academic self-concept (ASC), optimistic-pessimistic attributional style (OPT), motive to seek success (Ms), motive to avoid failure (Mf), cognitive anxiety (CA), and self-handicapping tendencies (SHT) 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 GSC ASC OPT Ms Mf CA SHT 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.31** 0.23** 0.34** 0.52** 0.60** 0.20**

0.24** 0.30** 0.23** 0.26** 0.45**

0.21** 0.28** 0.14* 0.18**

0.33** 0.28** 0.22**

0.65** 0.11

0.21**

*P 0.05 **P 0.01 Two-tailed test

The expectancy hypothesis was tested by factor analysis of the seven personality dispositions and the two discriminative variables using principal component analysis (with 1.0 as diagonal elements) and Kaisers criterion of eigenvalues above 1.0 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994); resulting in three factors. The rst factor explained 32.7%, the second 13.6%, and the third 12.8% of the total variance. Several three-dimensional rotated solutions were generated, but all solutions were quite similar to the unrotated one. Hence, the unrotated three-factor solution is shown in Table 3. The loadings on the rst factor in Table 3 are moderate to large in size, and the signs are in line with positive and negative expectancy. Thus GSC, ASC, OPT and Ms, representing positive expectancy, have substantial positive loadings, whereas the remaining three personality dispositions Mf, CA and SHT, representing negative expectancy, all load negatively. Moreover, the loadings of the two discriminative variables are negligible. Hence, Factor 1 may be interTable 3. Unrotated three-factor matrix for the seven personality dispositions and for the two discriminative variables: status (STA) and type of study and location (TYP) Factor 1 GSC ASC OPT Ms Mf CA SHT STA TYP 0.75 0.60 0.45 0.58 0.75 0.76 0.48 0.29 0.13 Factor 2 0.28 0.54 0.18 0.17 0.41 0.41 0.63 0.14 0.20 Factor 3 0.22 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.67 0.78

The Concept of Expectancy

Table 4. Final cluster centers of the respondents for the seven personality dispositions and the two discriminative variables Cluster 1 GSC ASC OPT Ms Mf CA SHT STA TYP *P 0.05 **P 0.01 Two-tailed test 46,96 21.38 2.10 33.50 18.92 15.21 10.63 1.66 2.00 Cluster 2 34.83** 18.01** 1.79** 29.87** 26.78** 22.73** 12.49** 1.45 2.00

51

preted as a general bipolar expectancy factor. It should be noted that the correlation coefcients in Table 2 are not corrected for attenuation. Therefore, the correlations and, in turn, the factor loadings should be considered underestimates of the relevant true values. This argument of attenuation strengthens, of course, the given interpretation. Factors 2 and 3, which are supposed to represent specic aspects of the respective scales, and therefore are of secondary importance here, cannot be given clear interpretations. To identify positive and negative expectancy clusters, a k-mean cluster analysis of the respondents (Anderberg, 1973) was performed. Table 4 presents this two-cluster solution. Clusters 1 and 2 contain 139 and 86 respondents, respectively, while three respondents were missing. The table shows the cluster means on the seven disposition variables and the two discriminative variables, and signicant differences are indicated. As shown, all of the seven personality differences are signicant. As for interpretation, note that the dispositions related to positive expectancy have higher means in the rst cluster than in the second, and vice versa for the dispositions related to negative expectancy. Furthermore, observe that the differences for the two discriminative variables are either zero or trivial. Consequently, the rst cluster represents positive expectancy and the second negative expectancy.

Discussion The purpose of the present study was to investigate if the concept of general expectancy constitutes a common core in relevant personality instruments. As predicted, factor analysis and cluster analysis revealed the positive pole of the expectancy concept in the personality dispositions global and academic selfconcept, optimistic-pessimistic style, and motive to seek success, while the negative pole of the expectancy concept emerged in motive to avoid failure,

52

R. Haugen et al.

cognitive anxiety, and self-handicapping tendencies. The two discriminative variablesmarital status and type and location of studywere practically unrelated to expectancy. Hence, the expectancy hypothesis may be considered supported. The results are in line with the ndings of Haugen and Lund (1999), where 166 advanced student teachers were scored on nine personality dispositions partly similar to those included here. As in the present study, factor analysis generated a general bipolar expectancy factor, and cluster analysis a positive and a negative expectancy cluster. Extending the study by Haugen and Lund (1999), however, the present study also includes cognitive anxiety and self-handicapping strategies as candidates in a negative expectancy cluster. The nding that cognitive anxiety is embedded in such a cluster supports the model of sport performance anxiety, which holds that those high in cognitive anxiety seem vulnerable to negative appraisals of achievement situations, expecting the worst to occur (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Smith et al., 1990; Spielberger, 1966). The present results that self-reported excusemaking or the use of self-handicapping strategies were part of a negative expectancy cluster are in line with the reasoning that self-handicapping is a course of action undertaken to protect or enhance ones self-evaluation in the face of an evaluation threat (Tice, 1991). Self-handicapping, which refers to a strategic manipulation of a situation in such a way that an individual can claim that obstacles to her or his performance account for a potential failure (Berglas, 1985), may be used to save face. This strategy involves drawing attention to a possible impediment to performance so that it can be blamed if failure should occur. Apparently, when lled with pessimism due to foreseeing a potential failure, individuals may make use of strategies in order to save face. Thus, the clustering of self-handicapping on a negative expectancy factor seems logical. In sum, the convergence of these two studies strengthens the validity of the expectancy hypothesis. Whether positive and negative expectancy should be regarded as opposite poles of a single factor (one-factor structure) or as two correlated dimensions (two-factor structure) is, however, an open question. In distinguishing optimism from pessimism Marshall, Wortman, Kusulas, Herwig, & Vickers (1992) point to the fact that factor analytic studies of one of the most widely used indexes of dispositional optimism, the life orientation test (LOT; Scheier & Carver, 1985) have consistently shown the superiority of a two-factor model of optimism and pessimism. On the other hand, (Weisman, Lester, & Tresler Beck, 1974; Scheier & Carver, 1985; Smith, Pope, Rodervalt, & Poulton, 1989) claim that optimism is indistinguishable from neuroticism and negative affect, thus advocating a one-factor structure. There is, however, one fundamental difference between the present study and the Marshall et al. (1992) study. Marshall et al. analyse the item content within two instruments, (the LOT and the hopelessness scale (HS) of Beck et al. (1974). These instruments were specially constructed with the intention of measuring pessimism (four items on the LOT and nine items on the HS) and optimism (four items on the LOT and 11 items on the HS). In the present

The Concept of Expectancy

53

study the analysis is based on sum scores across different personality instruments. When using sum scores across 16 different personality instruments, Marshall, Wortman, Vickers, Kusulas, & Herwig (1994) also end up with a bipolar factor which they call optimistic control dened by instruments tapping optimism, hope, internal control, self-esteem, faith in ones abilities, and the capacity to derive meaning from life. In addition, the LOT and the HS are based on the individuals perception of life in general, while the instruments chosen in this study are relevant to achievement. The conclusion is that the concept of general expectancy is a fruitful concept in central personality dispositions, encompassing both positive and negative expectancy including components of optimism and pessimism. Future research should analyse the item content within each of the personality instruments as well as sum scores across the same instruments.

References
Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P., & Teasdale, J.D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 5974. Anderberg, M.R. (1973). Cluster analysis for applications. New York: Academic Press. Atkinson, J.W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efcacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Beck, A.T., Weismann, A., Lester, D., & Tresler, L. (1974). the measurement of pessimism: The hopelessness scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 861865. Berglas, S. (1985). Self-handicapping and self-handicappers: A cognitive/attributional model of interpersonal self-protective behavior. Perspectives in Personality, 1, 235270. Burton, D. (1988). Do anxious swimmers swim slower? Re-examining the elusive anxietyperformance relationship. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 4561. Christophersen, K.A., & Rand, P. (1982). Factor structure of the achievement motive scale (AMS): Two factorstwo samples. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 26, 1328. Coopersmith, S. (1970). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Covington, M.V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press. Feather, N.T. (1982). Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology (pp. 119142). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R.H. (1974). Type A behavior and your heart. New York: Knopf. Gould, D., & Krane, V. (1992). The arousal-athletic performance relationship: Current status and future directions. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology. New York: Human Kinetics Publishers. Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Haugen, R., & Lund, T. (1999). The concept of general expectancy in various personality dispositions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40, 109114. Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. Heidelberg: Springer. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Longmans, Green. Keith, L.K., & Bracken, B.A. (1996). Self-concept instrumentation: A historical and evaluative review. In B.A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept. Developmental, social, and clinical considerations (pp. 91170). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.

54

R. Haugen et al.

Marsh, H.W. (1990). Self-description questionnaire, II. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Marshall, G.N., Wortman, C.B., Kusulas, J.W., Herwig, L.K., & Vickers, R.R. Jr. (1992). Distinguishing optimism from pessimism: Relations to fundamental dimensions of mood and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 10671074. Marshall, G.N., Wortman, C.B., Vickers, R.R. Jr., Kusulas, J.W., & Herwig, L.K. (1994). The ve-factor model of personality as a framework for personality-health research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 278285. Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R., Bump, L., & Smith, D. (1990). The development of the competitive state anxiety inventory-2 (CSAI-2). In R. Martens, R.S. Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive anxiety in sport (pp. 117190). Champaign IL: Human Kinetics. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Nygard, R. (1977). Personality, situation, and persistence. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Nygard, R., & Gjesme, T. (1973). Assessment of achievement motives: Comments and suggestions. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 17, 3946. Oettingen, G. (2000). Expectancy effects on behavior depend on self-regulatory thought. Social Cognition, 18, 101129. Ommundsen, Y. (2001). Self-handicapping strategies in physical education classes: The inuence of implicit theories of the nature of ability and achivement goal orientations. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2, 139156. Ouellette, J.A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 5474. Peterson, C., & Barrett, L.C. (1987). Explanatory style and academic performance among university freshmen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 603607. Peterson, C., Maier, S.F., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1993). Learned helplessness. A theory for the age of personal control. New York: Oxford University Press. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk factor for depression: Theory and evidence. Psychological Review, 91, 347374. Peterson, C., Semmel, A., von Baeyer, C., Abramson, L.Y., Metalsky, G.I., & Seligman, M.E. P. (1982). The attributional style questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 287299. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219247. Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 201228. Scheier, M.F., Carver, C.S., & Bridges, M.W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the life orientation test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 10631078. Shavelson, R.J., Hubner, J.J., & Stanton, G.C. (1976). Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407441. Smith, R.E., Smoll, F., & Schutz, R.W. (1990). Measurement and correlates of sportspecic cognitive and somatic anxiety: The sport anxiety scale. Anxiety Research, 2, 263280. Smith, T.W., Pope, M.K., Rodervalt, F., & Poulton, J.L. (1989). Optimism, neuroticism, coping, and symptom reports: An alternative interpretation of the life orientation test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 640648. Song, I.S., & Hattie, J.A. (1984). Home environment, self-concept, and academic achievement: A causal modeling approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 12691281.

The Concept of Expectancy

55

Spielberger, C. (1966). Theory and research on anxiety. In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behaviour (pp. 117). New York: Academic Press. Tice, D.M. (1991). Esteem protection or enhancement? Self-handicapping motives and attributions differ by trait self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 711725. Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E.M. (1998). The role of classroom goal structure in students use of self-handicapping strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 101122.